w 


ciHcrMCisiox  Am  baptism. 


iSACRAMKNTS  OF  Till 


('()VENA?\T  OF  GKACE 


HKING    A    CANDID   C>)NS1DEKATI0X    OF   TIIK    POIN'rS   AT 
ISSUE  BETWEEN 

PE8P>YTEIJIANS  AND  P>ArTIST8. 

RELATIVE  TO  BAPTISM ITS  SCOPE MEANING MODE,       ^ 

AND  SUBJECTB, 

BY  REV.  R  K.  NASH, 


I^afttor  of  Centre  Clnirch, 

ROBESOy  COUNTY,  N.  C. 


PRINTED  AT  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  OFFICE, 
FAYETTFVILLE,  X.  C. 

1S59. 


/o;^3 


CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM, 


SAUKAMEI^TS  OF  THli 


COVE.NANT  OF  GRACE, 


BEING    A    CANDID    CONSIDERATION    OF    THE    POINTS    AT 
IS8UE  BETWEEN 


PESBYTERIAXS  A^D  BAPTISTS. 

RELATIVE  TO  BAPTISM ITS  SCOPE MEANING MODE, 

AND  SUBJECTS, 

BY  REV.  F.  K>1S"ASH, 
P*astor   of  Centre    Ohiirch. 

ROBESON  COFNTY,  N.  C. 


PRINTED  AT  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  OFFICE, 
FAYETTEVILLE,  X.  C. 
1859. 


^c- 


•> 


"particular" — particiil^lfb.  ^  if 

"  disciples*' — disciple.  ^^'^^     v       /r 


3  The  period  should  be  left 

"  reference  in  parenthesis. 

10  "  sea"— seal. 

lo  "sign-token" — sign,  token. 

:?d  from  bottom.— Perio<l  should  be  at  end 

"  of  quotation. 

14-  from  bottom. — Paragraph  should  have 

''  stopped  at  "importance." 

18  The   paragraph   should    ha\"e   ended 

"  with  the  words   "  Let  the  impartial 

"  reader  answer." 

7  from  bottom. — "  ground'' — grounds. 

5  "  when" — where. 

29  "  languages" — language. 

6  "  regions" — region. 

12  •'  father's" — Father's. 

13  "  hrej-yhcC^ — bnqyJup. 

15  "  The  semicolon  after  "strange  world;' ^ 

"  instead  of  comma. 

IT  "  sare  them" — lore  them. 


TABLE  OF  COXTKXT^?!^  ^: - 


''"^^^ 


C  11  A  P  T  E  I{     !  . 

I'AdK. 

Tntrodiietion vi 

The  ''/<'  commission,  and  wliat  it  iiichulo-* 1 

Piosbyteriau  Church,  abides  by  its  oider 2 

Makes  baptizing  SLK'ondary  to  teachini^:  and  di^cipliii.tr.  ...  :> 

In  this,  follows  the  example  of  Christ  and  Paul 3 

Order    of  discussion .  .    .  4 

One  chnrch  oi  (ilod,   lOi  e.sxcuthd  and   fniihinn'iihi'   truth.  5- 

Why  the  Church  is  both   riuldi:  and  itivhthlc <> 

W!iy  the  Chureh  lias  always   had  sacraments 7 

"What  are  Si-.craments 7 

No  foioe  without  the  covenant K 

Augustin    and  Calvin  cyaoted S- 

The  coveiiiint  witl;  Abrah.im   (iep..  xix  .-lioun  to  l>e  that  of 

Grace ~. \^ 

Argument  condensed  .  .  . \'i^ 

Corollaries 1 :? 

C  n  A  P  T  E  K    I  1. 

Kite  of  b;iptism  ;   wl:;:t  it   is 15 

Agrees  with  circnmci-io-i  in  ^ve  thi  gs l(i 

Differs  in  two 1  (> 

Augustin   quoted 17 

Does  not  Ho  in  the  oatw.ud  application  of  water 17 

Five  tliii!ii.s  necrssaiv  to    (he   outward   lite i^> 


CONTENTS. 

H;i,ptisiu  ix   .^acraitu'iit  to  a  covenant 21 

Two  changes  necessary  before  man  is  fit  for  baptism 22 

More  than   an  obli«^ation  to  obedience 23 

A  sio-ii  and  Peal   of  the  covenant ......' 24 

C  II  A  F  T  F.  R    III. 

Dhristinn  bnptisin  a    perman^'nt  institution 26 

Xii.zianzinns  and  Tnrtullian 26 

The  mode  not  e^^^ential . 27 

Tins  disev\ssio)i  not  an  attack,  btif,  a  defence 28 

The  Baptist  chMrch   honore  ? 29 

Spirit  of  bigotry  and  high  chureliism  opposed 30 

Robert  Hall  and  C.  H,  Spurgcon 31 

This  Fpiiit  schismatical 32 

Our  position   stat-'d 84 

Order  of  discussion 35 

Our  Saviour  did  not  directly  teach  any  pai'ticular  mode.  .  .  35 

Reasons  for  tins 36 

Some  places  where  i'nmersion  cannot  go  as  a  permanent  in- 
stitution   : 87 

The   Greek   word   "  Baptizo"  in   tbe  New  Testament  wl'cn 
used  in  connection  with  baptism  refers  to  tiie  institution, 

not  to   the  mole  of  applying  the  water 39 

Views  of  Pres-^.yteiian  church  as  stated  in  her  Confession.  .  40 

Oalvin  and  Wit'^ius  quoted 41 

Another  view  of  the   case .  .  45 

The  (rreek  prepositions 51 

CHAPTER    IV. 

Point  of  agreement  between  all  Christians 66 

Point  at  issue,  and  mode  of  treating  it 57 

Infants  included  in  the  commission 67 

Infants  in  the  covenant 68 

The  church  first  organized 61 

Infants  in  the  church 62 


CONTENTS.  T 

The  Jewish  Church  the  Church  of  God 62 

Infants  members  of  the  kingdom  of  God 65 

Calvin  quoted .* 65 

Infants  are  holy 66 

Infants  baptized  in  all  the  early  ages  of  the  church 67 

Calvin,  Brown,  Augustin,  Erasmus 68 

OBJECTIONS. 

No  "  Express  Command"  answered 69 

No  "  Express  Instance"  answered 71 

Cannot  exercise  faith  and  repentance  answered 72 

How  faith  and  repentance  are  prerequisites 72 

The  right  of  infants  to  baptism  rests  precisely  upon  the 

same  ground  with  that  of  adults 73 

The  objection  deprives  infants  of  the  inheritance  of  life. .  74 

The  system  we  oppose 77 

The  system  we  love 78 


INTKODrOTiOiV, 


Tiie  iimttei',  {iiid  imicli  of  the  ibrni  of  tlie  ])resen1" 
unpreteiuling  woj-k,  was  delivered  in  Sennons  to  tlie 
])eople  of  luj  cliai'ge. 

The  impression  niade  ])y  these  Sermons,  on  the 
minds  of  many  of  (lod's  dear  people,  led  to  the  ex- 
pression of  a  desire  on  their  part,  for  ;]ieir  pnblica- 
tion. 

This  desire,  communicated  with  miicli  Jelicacj'and 
kindness  on  their  part,  their  Pastor  li:i>,  c  >nsented  to 
gratify. 

The  topics  liandkd  liave  been  so  often  and  ably 
discussed  by  the  first  minds  tlie  church  lias  ]>roduced, 
that  it  would  be  idle  !<>  ])]-etend  to  any  oi'iginality. 
ISTothino'  new  can  be  said  on  eitlier  side.  The  object 
liad  in  view  by  the  antlior,  Ijas  been  to  condense  in- 
to as  narrow  a  compass  as  possible,  the  Scripture  ar- 
guments that  go  to  sustain  Uie  vievvi  and  ju-actice  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  I'elation  to  the  Sacra- 
ments of  Cii'cnmcision  and  nii[)rism.  And,  in  do- 
ing tills,  he  luis  not  hesitated  to  use  the  best  argu- 
ments lie  Iuid  been  able  to  lay  his  hands  on. 


VII  IXTRoDrcriON. 

He  has  also,  in  many  places,  used  the  language  of 
others  when  it  has  suited  his  purpose  in  the  plan  of 
his  argument,  and  run  with  the  general  current 
of  his  thoughts.  It  has  been  his  constant  desire  to 
present  his  views  in  such  immediate  connexion  with 
the  Covenant,  from  wliicli  they  derive  their  meaning 
and  efficacy,  that  the  humblest  minds  might  compre- 
hend them.  He  has  avoided  prolixity  as  much 
as  possible,  and  in  every  position  songht  to  leave 
oftt  all  side  issues,  and  go  directly  to  the  heart 
of  the  matter.  In  doing  this,  he  is  aware  that  many 
points  having  an  important  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tions involved,  have  been  left  out.  Bnt  still,  he 
thinks  enough  has  been  said  to  establish  the  fact, 
that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  her  views  and  prac- 
tice, stands  upon  the  ground  d^  the  Covenant,  and 
is  sustained  by  all  the  Scripture. 


*     % 


^' 


'^.r-^. 


CHAPTER  TK^K   v. 

CIRCUMCISION  A  SACRAMENT  OF  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 
Matthew  xxviii:  19,  20. 

"Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

20.  Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded'you:  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.     Amen." 

This  is  the  great  commission  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
gave  his  disciples,  when,  shortly  before  his  ascen- 
sion, he  sent  them  forth  to  teach  the  nations. 

This  same  commission  he  gives  to  all  his  minis- 
ters, in  every  age,  and  it  alone  constitutes  a  suffi- 
cient authority  for  Siy  of  them  to  preach  the  Gospel 
of  the  Son  of  God. 

Bearing  these  indentures,  they  are  God's  ambas- 
sadors, and  may  take  along  with  them,  wherever 
they  go,  the  promise,  "Lo,  I  am  with  you  always." 

It  is  of  the  first  importance,  not  only  that  the  full 
meaning  of  this  commission  be  reached,  but  also  that 
the  mutual  bearings  and  relations  of  its  several 
parts  be  distinctly  understood.  For  unless  this  is 
done,  the  ambassador  himself  will  neither  know  the 
extent  of  his  credentials,  nor  the  just  proportion  of 
the  duties  devolving  upon  him. 

2 


2 

IN'ow,  a  careful  analysis  of  this  commission  will 
show  that  it  contains  the  following  particular:  1st, 
Powder  to  teach;  2ncl,  Authority  to  disciples ;  3rcl, 
A  right  to  baptize ;  4th,  Authority  to  require  those 
taught,  d'.scipled,  baptized,  "to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you." 

In  this  charter  of  ministerial  rights  and  obliga- 
tions, it  is  of  importance  to  observe  that  'teaching" 
and  "discipling"  go  before  "baptizing,"  and  obe- 
dience.to  the  commands  of  Christ  follows  aftej'  alL 
By  observing  this  order  of  Christ's  commission,  the 
unity,  peace,  purity  and  efficiency  of  the  church  are 
always  promoted.  By  violating  that  order,  schism, 
dissension  and  great  ecclesiastical  inefficiency  have 
invariably  ensued. 

It  has  been  the  glory  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
that  she  has  ever  sought  to  abida^by  the  teaching  of 
her  Saviour,  and  to  observe  the  order  of  God's  house 
as  given  in  her  commission. 

She  never  baptizes  without  first  teachwg  and  dis- 
eipling.  But  is  it  asked,  "  Does  she  not  baptize  in- 
fants ?"  Yes,  she  does ;  but  7iever  luithoiit  a  fore- 
running discipling  of  one  or  both  parents,  and  their 
infants  occupying  the  relation  of  minor  heirs  of  the 
covenant  of  life. 

She  places  baptism  secondary  to  teaching  and  dis- 
cipling, just  as  our  blessed  and  wise  Master  did  in 
the  commission.  Aud  in  this  respect  she  follows  his 
l)right  and  illustrious  example ;  for  it  is  a  telling  fact, 


that  though  he  spent  his  dear  life  in  indefatigable 
labor,  in  teaching  and  discipling,  he  never  (in  all  his 
life  on  earth)  baptized  a  single  individual  with  wa- 
ter. Jno.  iv :  2.  And  in  this  respect  she  follows,  too, 
in  the  footsteps  of  Paul,  the  great  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  for  we  hear  him  saying,  "I  thank  God  I 
baptized  none  of  yon,  but  Crispus,  and  Gains,  and 
tlie  household  of  Stephanus."  And  the  reason  he 
gives  is  this :  ''For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baiMze^  but 
to  preach  the  Gosjyel^  "What !  Christ  sent  Paul  not 
to  haptlze  !  Then  baptizing  is  subsidiary  to  preach- 
ing. He,  then,  who  places  baptism  upon  an  equal- 
ity with  "teaching  and  discipling"  inars  the  order 
of  Christ's  commission,  goes  contrary  to  the  example 
of  Christ  and  the  inspired  apostles,  and  in  the  same 
degree  displeases  the  Master,  and  hinders  the  pro- 
gress of  his  cause. 

Whether  Mr.  Monroe  in  his  Sermons  "  Faith  and 
Baptism,"  together  with  all  those  writers  who  agree 
with  him,  does  not  do  this  in  the  opinion  that  im- 
mersion is  the  only  Scripture  mode  of  baptism — - 
that  infants  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  church — 
and  that  God's  acknowledged  people  are  not  to  be 
permitted  to  hold  communion  together  at  the  Lord's 
table,  unless  they  believe  in  immersion  baptism,  we 
leave  to  the  impartial  reader  to  determine,  after  he 
has  passed  through  this  discussion. 

It  was  certainly  very  uncharitable  in  tlie  ruthor 
of  '^ Faith  and  Baptism"  to  insinuate,  as  he  does. 


tliat  those  ministers  who  differ  with  him  in  opinion 
about  baptism,  "  do  not  preach  all  the  counsel  of 
God."  See  4th  page  of  Introduction,  and  that  there 
is  danger  that  "  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  "  in  their  hands 
will  be  only  "a  bleeding  victim  on  the  altar  of  pop- 
ularity."    See  page  96. 

If  the  reader  will  pardon  the  candor  of  the  writer 
of  these  pages,  he  will  say  that,  he  never  felt  a  stron- 
s:er  temptation  to  offer  a  bleeding  victim  on  the  al- 
tar of  popularity  than  just  here. 

Thankful  for  the  restraints  that  the  fear  of  God 
has  put  upon  him,  he  will  only  say  that  there  is  no- 
thing in  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
on  this  subject,  that  he  does  not  cordially  approve, 
and  which  he  feels  unwilling  both  to  teach  and  de- 
fend on  all  suitable  occasions.  IN'or  is  there  any- 
tliing  lurking  under  the  name  of  baptism,  as  used 
and  taught  by  our  adorable  Redeemer,  that  he  does 
not  love  and  try  to  teach. 

The  whok  of  what  we  wish  to  pass  in  review  be- 
fore the  reader,  wall  range  itself  under  tlie  following 
general  divisions : 

1st.  Circumcision  and  baptism,  sacraments  of  one 
and  the  same  covenant — their  nature  and  design. 

2nd.  The  sacrament  of  baptism — wherein  it  con- 
sists— its  meaning  and  purpose. 

3rd.  The  mode  of  baptism. 

4th.  The  subjects  of  baptism. 

There  never  has  been  but  one  true  church  of  God 


on  earth.  This  is  so,  because  there  never  has  been 
but  one  true  God  to  pity  fallen  man,  and  one  true 
Saviour  to  redeem  him,  and  one  true  Spirit  to  win 
and  draw  him  back  to  his  recovered  life. 

The  infinite  counsels  of  wisdom  and  peace  be- 
tween the  three  Persons  of  the  adorable  Trinity  date 
back  "before  the  Ibundation  of  the  world"  and  lo- 
cate themselves  in  unfathomable  eternity. 

The  principles  upon  which  salvation  was  to  be 
wrought  out,  evolved  themselves  from  the  depths  of 
the  Divine  Mind.  Being  the  result  of  Infinite  intel- 
ligence, they  are  all  harmonious  and  never  have  or 
can  change.  The  salvation  of  Abel,  Abraham  and 
Paul  was  wrought  out  upon  precisely  tlie  same  prin- 
ciples, which  all  had  their  home  in  the  bosom  ot' 
God. 

The  church  is  only  the  outworkings  of  these  sav- 
ing principles,  and  must,  therefore,  be  one  and  only 
one. 

The  ages  have  presented  to  the  eyes  of  men  differ- 
ent developments  of  this  one  church,  but  its  essen- 
tial features  have  ever  been  the  same. 

From  x\dam  to  Abraham — from  Abraham  to  Mo  - 
ses — from  Moses  to  Christ,  and  from  Christ  down  to 
the  present  time,  it  has  had  one  Lord  and  Head,  one 
Faith  and  one  Spirit. 

Flaviug  one  Lord  and  standing  upon  the  platform 
of  a  common  faith  in  him,  as  Messiah  and  Mediator, 
it  has  gone  forth  to  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  its 


day,  animated  and  impelled  by  one  and  the  same 
Spirit. 

Adam,  and  Abraham,  and  Moses  stood  upon  the 
same  foundation — Jesus  Christ — felt  the  constrain- 
ing force  of  a  true  faith,  and  accomplished  their  sal- 
vation through  the  operation  of  his  Spirit  within 
them. 

This  church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  has  always  been 
both  visible  and  invisible.  And  this  is  in  conse- 
quence of  the  twofold  nature  of  man,  as  he  is  com- 
posed of  body  and  spirit. 

As  the  spirit  of  man  is  invisible,  the  work  God 
does  upon  it  in  the  way  of  its  salvation  is  invisible, 
save  as  it  is  evinced  through  the  activities  of  his 
body.  And  as  there  is  a  very  intimate  connexion 
in  man  between  his  soul  and  body,  both  exerting  an 
important  mutual  influence,  God  has  so  constituted 
his  church,  that  in  the  great  work  of  salvation  it 
shall  touch  and  rouse  the  whole  man,  so  that  when 
this  shall  have[jbeen  accomplished,  the  whole  man — 
body  and  soul — shall  stand  an  eternal  monument  to 
Christ's  power  to  save. 

The  sacraments  of  the  visible  church  have  changed 
with  every  dispensation,  just  as  the  light  of  the  gos- 
pel has  increased  upon  it.  But  this  has  been  only 
a  change  of  outward  developments,  in  ceremonies 
and  ordinances,  and  implies  no  change  in  the  church 
itself. 

The  church  from  Adam   to  Abraham,  had   the 


sacrament  of  sacrifice.  From  Abraham  to  Moses, 
it  had  the  sacraments  of  Circumcisio7i.  From  Moses 
to  Christ,  the  sacraments  of  CircumcJsiori  and  Pass- 
over^ and  from  Christ  to  onr  day,  it  has  liad  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

]S"ow,  the  chief  reason  for  the  institution  of  these 
Sacraments  in  tlie  church,  ^vill  probably  be^'found 
in  the  fact  that  our  Saviour,  having  redeemed  the 
body,  as  well  as  the  soul  of  his  people,  it  was  fit,  that 
it,  in  the  use  of  these  sacraments,  should  go  through 
a  preparatory  process  here,  and  thus  aid  the  soul, 
in  its  preparation  for  the  skies,  and  so  soul  and 
body  become  mutual  helpers,  in  the  work  of  salva- 
tion. 

As  God  has  appointed  the  sacraments  of  the  church 
tor  the  edification  of  the  members  thereof,  they  are 
never  rightly  observed,  except  where  the  man — body 
and  soul — is  emijloyed. 

The  body  must  be  concerned  about  the  outicard 
sign^  and  the  sonl  with  the  thing  signified. 

When  any  sacrament  of  the  church,  is  thus  receiv- 
ed, in  the  mutual  activities  of  the  whole  man,  it  is 
always  effectual,  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  thing 
divinely  intended. 

The  foregoing  observations  are  thought  important, 
to  enable  the  reader  to  understand  the  force  and 
practical  bearing  of  what  follows. 

What  then  are  sacraments? 

"Sacraments  are  holy  signs  and  seals  of  the  cov- 


8 

eiiant  of  grace,  immediately  instituted  by  God  liim- 
self,  to  represent  Christ  and  his  benefits,  and  to 
confirm  our  interest  in  him,  to  put  a  difference 
between  the  chnrch  and  the  world,  and  to  engage 
the  church  in  the  service  of  God  according  to  his 
word."     "  Con.  Faith,"  chap.  27,  sec.  1. 

All  sacraments  imply  the  existence  of  a  covenant  or 
promise  on  the  part  of  God,  for  as  they  are  signs  and 
stcds^  they  are  useless  unless  they  sign  and  seal  some- 
thing. 

]lTow,  a  sign  and  sea  by  themselves  are  of  no  value. 
If  put  upon  a  blank  sheet  of  paper,  they  are  worth- 
less ;  because  they  convey  no  right,  and  seal  no 
obligation.  But  if  they  be  attached  to  a  paper,  in 
which  an  estate  is  conveyed,  then  they  sign  and 
seal  the  right  and  title,  to  what  is  given  in  the  deed. 
Just  so,  if  we  exclude  the  covenant  of  God  frolii 
the  church,  they  become  ineffectual  and  value- 
less;  but  let  the  soul  understand  and  embrace  the 
covenant,  with  its  priceless  blessings,  and  they  be- 
come to  it  as  precious  as  the  blessings  themselves. 

Thus,  in  the  right  use  of  the  sacraments,  the  cove- 
nant with  its  promises  and  hlessings^  constitutes  the 
matter  about  wdiich  the  soul  is  engaged,  and  the 
performance  of  the  outwai'd  rite  what  occupies  the 
body.  These  views  harmonise  with  what  the  great 
Augustine  says  w^hen  he  defines  a  sacrament  to  be 
"a  visible  sign  of  a  sacred  thing"  or  "a  visible 
form  of  invisible  grace,"  and  also  with  Calvin  when 


he  says,  ''There  is  never  any  sacrament  without  an 
antecedent  promise  of  God^  to.  which  it  is  subjoined 
as  an  appendix." 

From  this  elevated  position  the  careful  reader  is 
now  asked  to  look  at  the  sacrament  of  circumcision. 
The  first  question  that  naturally  arises  here  is  this : 
Was  there  an  antecedent  covenant  which  this  sacra- 
ment signed  and  sealed?  Certainly  there  was.  See 
Genesis  xvii :  4 — 11. 

(The  reader  is  asked  to  take  his  Bible  and  turn  to 
the  reference  and  read  it  carefully.) 

Here  the  covenant  was,  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  This  was  the  gist  of  the 
whole  transaction.  All  the  rest  is  only  subsidiary. 
At  any  rate,  no  one  will  question  this  position,  that 
all  that  is  implied  in  heing  a  God  to  Ahraham  is 
included  in  this  covenant.  Xow,  the  promise,  '*a 
God  to  thee,"  includes  every  thing  that  rational  im- 
moirtals  need,  whether  they  be  sinless  or  sinning. 
The  holy  angels  need  no  more,  and  fallen  man  can- 
not be  more  highly  blessed. 

Is  a  Saviour  necessary  to  the  fallen  and  the  lost? 
Yes.  Was  Abraham  such?  Yes.  *  Then  to  be  "a 
God  to  Ahraliam^^  implied  that  God  would  provide 
a  Saviour  for  him.  Were  pardon,  regeneration  and 
sanctification  necessary  to  fit  Abraham  for  heaven  ? 
Yes.  Then  all  these  are  implied  in  the  words,  "I 
will  be  a  God  to  thee." 

iSTow,  what  covenant  was  this?     The  old  covenant 


10 

of  works?  Certainly  not ;  for  in  all  that,  God  oiever 
did,  because  lie  nev&r  could^  promise  the  sinner  to 
be  his  God. 

Was  it  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  in  which  God 
merely  separated  the  Jewish  nation  in  the  posterity 
of  Abraham,  and  promised  to  multiply  them  and 
give  them  the  land  of  Canaan?  No,  not  this  alone. 
For  though  God  in  the  covenant  does  promise  these 
things,  yet  they  were  only  incidental  Uessiiigs  of  an 
earthly  nature^  growing  out  of  the  great  fact  that 
God  had  become  his  God  and  the  God  of  his  seed. 

But  that  this  was  the  very  heart  of  this  covenant 
appears  very  plain  from  the  testimony  of  the  Apos- 
tle Paul,  who  says,  "To  Abraham  and  his  seed  were 
the  promises  made.  He  saith  not  to  seeds  as  of 
many,  but  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ,"  Gal.  iii : 
16.  Christ,  then,  included  in  the  covenant  was  its 
very  life.  Including  Christ,  it  by  necessity  included 
all  the  blessings  of  his  death  and  mediation.  It  was, 
therefore,  the  covenant  of  grace,  because  it  contained 
the  promise  of  a  Saviour.  But  what  is  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  Apostle  on  this  point?  "This  I  say,  that 
the  covenant^  \Yh.\Q\\  was -confirmed  before  of  God  in 
Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  cannut  disannul,  tha':  it  should  make  tlie 
promise  of  none  effect.  For  if  the  inheritance  be  of 
the  laAV,  it  is  no  more  of  promise :  but  God  gave  it 
to  Ahrahaiit  by  ])romise."     Gal.  iii:  IT,  18. 

IS'ow,  here  the  Apostle  directly  asserts  that  the 


11 


covenant  made  willi  Abraham  was  ^''  corifi i  med  in 
Christ,''  and  that  the  "  inheritance "  it  secured  to 
him  was  of  "promise,"  or  grace.  Xow,  if  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  render  this  more  plain,  if  possible,  let  it 
be  asked,  What  ''inheritance"  was  this  \  The  reply 
can  only  be,  the  inheritance  oi pardon^  justification 
and  eternal  ///">,  of  which  the  Apostle  had  just  been 
speaking. 

jS'ow,  then,  if  the  promise  of  eternal  life  through 
him  ''who  was  made  a  curse  for  us"  was  contained 
in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  then  that  covenant  was 
none  other  than  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  all  the 
cavillers  in  the  world  cannot  prove  to  the  contrary. 

What  was  the  visible  sign-token  or  sacrament  of 
this  covenant  with  Abraham?  God  answers,  "Ye 
shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin  ;  and.  it 
shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and. 
you."     Gen.  xvii:  11. 

Circumcision,  then,  was  the  visible  token  or  sacra- 
ment of  this  covenant,  and.  this  covenant  was  the 
covenant  of  grace.  Therefore,  circumcision  was  a 
sacrament  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  occupied 
precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  covenant  under 
the  old,  that  baptism  does  under  the  new  dispen- 
sation. 

It  is  regarded  as  all-important  to  a  correct  under- 
standing of  this  subject,  that  the  reader  fully  possess 
himself  of  the  foregoing  argument,  for  just  here  is 


12 

made  tlie  very  strongest  point  in  the  whole  Baptist 
argument. 

Our  Baptist  friends  assert  that  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  w^as  a  kind  of  national  covenant  in  which 
temporal  blessings  w^ere  chiefly  promised.  Circum- 
cision was  a  token  of  nationality,  and  the  blessings 
pertaining  to  that,  a  sacrament  at  most  only  of  the 
Jewish  church,  and  not  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  furnishes  no  argument  for  the  baptism  of 
infants. 

But  if,  as  we  have  shown,  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham was  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  token  of 
that  covenant  a  "  sign  of  the  righteousness  of  faith," 
as  the  Apostle  asserts,  (see  Ilom.  iv:  11,)  then  the 
whole  argument  breaks  down  and  has  no  force. 

For  the  benefit  of  the  reader,  we  will  here  give 
the  whole  of  our  argument  in  a  condensed  form. 

The  covenant  with  Abraham  (Gen.  xvii)  was  the 
covenant  of  grace, 

1st.  In  its  very  nature.  For  ''I  will  be  a  God  to 
thee  and  thy  seed,"  embraces  all  that  is  contained 
in  the  covenant  of  grace. 

2nd.  From  the  exposition  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
when  he  says,  "not  to  seeds  as  of  many,  but  to  thy 
seed^  which  is  Christ.'''' 

Is  there  grace  in  the  gift  of  a  Saviour?  Is  there 
grace  in  his  atoning  work?  Is  there  grace  in  his 
mediatorship  on  earth  and  in  heaven?     Then  this 


13 

vas  a  covenant  full  of  c^race,  and  grace  was  its  chief 
and  abounding  glory. 

3rd.  From  the  apostle's  explanation  of  circumci- 
sion, the  token  of  this  covenant,  he  does  not  call  it  a 
sign  or  token  of  nationality  or  Judaism,  but  he 
says  expressly,  Abraham  ''  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision as  a  seal  of  the  rigJdeoiisness  of  faith 
which  he  had  yet  being  nncircumeised." 

*'  Righteousness  of  faith''  pertains  to  the  covenant 
of  grace,  therefore  circumcision  was  a  sign  and 
■seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

There  are  certain  corollaries,  that  follow  from  the 
foregoing  argument,  of  vast  practical  importance  to 
th«  church  of  God. 

1st.  iN'o  sacrament  can  be  of  itself  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  salvation.  For  if  the  sacrament  is  neces- 
sary, then  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  without  bap- 
tism are  lost,  but  all  evangelical  Christians  unite  in 
the  sentiment,  that  they  are  saved.  Our  Saviour 
says  of  infants,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven;" 
and  we  have  reason  to  believe  the  penitent  thief 
was  taken  to  Paradise,  without  the  sacraments. 

2nd.  IN'o  sacraments  put  men  in  a  state  of  salva- 
tion. It  was  not  circumcision  that  put  Abraham  in 
covenant  with  God  :  it  was  only  the  sign  of  a  pre- 
viously existing  covenant  relation.  His  forerunning 
interest  in  the  covenant,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  en- 
titled him  to  the  sign  thereof.  "  He  received  the 
sign  of  circumcision,  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 


14 

of  faith,  which  he  had  yet  being  iincircumcised.?* 
So  in  baptism,  men  in  adult  years  do  not  obtain  an 
interest  in  the  covenant  through  their  baptism,  but 
they  receive  the  sign  of  baptism  as  a  seal  of  the 
'' rig7iteoi(s?iess  of  faith^^  which  they  have  before 
baptism.  The  ''  righteousness  of  faith"  going  be- 
fore baptism,  is  just  as  necessary  to  entitle  a  man  to 
this  sign  of  the  covenant,  as  it  was  to  entitle  Abra- 
ham to  circumcision. 

So  with  our  infants,  we  do  not  baptize  them  to 
introduce  them  into  covenant  with  God,  but  because 
they  are  already  in  the  covenant  by  reason  of  the 
promise,  ''  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed." 


15 


CHAPTEE   II. 

Bi.PTISM— ITS     EELATION    TO     THE     COVENANT XATUKE 

AND  MEANING. 

The  comtnission  our  Lord  and  Saviour  gave  his 
ministers  when  he  sent  them  out  to  "  teach,"  empow- 
ers them  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trini- 
ty. Matt,  xxviii :  19.  The  charge  to  baptize  being 
coupled  with  the  command  to  preach  the  gospel, 
shows  that  it  was  intended  by  the  Master  to  go  along 
with  that,  to  all  the  world.  Baptism,  then,  must  go 
where  the  gospel  goes,  and  he  who  has  the  right  to 
lift  up  his  voice  in  the  utterance  of  its  precious  ti- 
dings, is  equally  authorized  to  place  upon  all  who 
are  won  by  his  instructions,  this  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  life. 

It  is  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  all  minis- 
ters of  the  Gospel  to  baptize.  The  facts  which  es- 
tablish their  ministerial  character,  confirm  their  right 
to  all  the  offices  pertaining  to  their  ministry. 

Baptism  is  one  of  the  offices  of  the  ministry,  there- 
fore it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  every  minister  to 
baptize. 

What  then  is  baptism  ?  "  It  is  a  sacrament  of 
the  Kew  Testament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not 
only  for  the  solemn  admission  of  the  party  baptized 
into  the  visible  church,  but  also,  to  be  unto  him  a 


16 

sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  blessing?* 
thereof,  and  of  his  giving  himself  to  God,  to  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  The  outward  element  to  be  used 
in  this  sacrament  is  water,  wherewith  the  party  is 
to  be  baptized  "  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Con.  of  Fai'th, 
chap.  28,  sec.  1. 

This  is  Christian  baptism. 

IS;  ow  let  us  see,  how  it  agrees  with  cireti'mcision, 
and  how  it  differs  from  it. 

1st.  It  is  a  sacrament  of  the  visible  church.  So 
was  circumcision. 

2nd.  Instituted  by  God.     So  was  circumcision. 

3rd.  For  admission  to  the  visible  church.  So  of 
circumcision. 

4th.  It  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace^ 
and  the  blessings  thereof.  So  w^as  circumcision,  as 
we  have  shown. 

5th.  It  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  our  covenant  en- 
gagement to  God,  to  walk  before  liim  in  newness  of 
life.     So  was  circumcision. 

In  five  things  then  they  agree.  In  what  do  thej 
differ? 

1st.  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of  the  'New,  circum- 
cision of  the  Old  Testament. 

2nd.  Circumcision  was  a  bloody  sacrament,  indi- 
cating a  suffering,  bleeding  Saviour  to  come.  Bap- 
tism is  a  watery  sacrament,  indicating  a  Saviour 
come,  and  bloodshedding  over. 


IT 

Kow  then,  the  j  agree  in  ^ve  particulars,  and  differ  in 
two  and  these  the  most  unimjportant.  Are  they  not 
then,  essentially  the  same  ?  and  do  they  not  occupy 
precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  vipible  church,  and 
'he  covenant  of  grace,  upon  which  that  church  stands? 

In  confirmation  of  this  view  of  the  case,  see  what 
the  great  Augustin  says  :  "  The  sacraments  of  the  old 
Law  ouly  promised  the  Saviour,  ours,"  i.  e.  those  of 
the  T^ew  Testament,  "  give  salvation."  *'  The  sacra- 
ments of  the  Mosaic  Law,  announced  Christ  as  af- 
Urvmrds  to  come,  ours  announce  Ilim  as  already 
come." 

There  is  then,  no  difference  in  the  sacraments 
themselves,  only  in  the  outward  rite,  and  the  rela- 
tion they  sustain  to  the  Saviour — circumcision  pre- 
figures Christ,  baptism  announces  him  as  come. 

Xow,  whatever  the  nature  of  baptism  may  be,  it 
rannot  lie  in  the  outward  application  of  water^  or 
in  the  mode  of  applying  the  water. 

1st-  It  does  not  lie  iu  the  outward  application  of 
water. 

The  proof  of  this  point  wnll  lie  in  showing,  that 
circumcision  did  not  consist  merely  of  the  outward 
rite,  and  if  circumcision  did  not,  much  more  bap- 
tism does  not,  by  unavoidable  consequence. 

Under  the  Old  Testament,  admission  to  the  Church, 
and  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  were  held  forth 
to  believers,  under  signs  and  figures.  This  was  em- 
phatically a  dispensation  of  cerenionies ;  yet,  even 


18 

under  this,  every  sign  held  forth  a  spiritual  myste- 
ry, upon  which  the  faith  of  believers  rested. 

Thus,  while  the  rite  of  circumcision  was  enjoined, 
as  the  ceremony  of  initiation  to  the  fellowship  of 
the  church,  the  Jews  were  at  the  same  lime  instruct- 
ed in  the  nature  of  the  sign,  in  the  command  to  "  cir- 
cumcise the  foreskin  of  their  heart."  Dent,  x:  16. 
The  outward  sign  then — the  cutting  of  the  flesh,  im- 
ported the  cutting  of  the  heart,  and  the  consecration 
of  that  to  the  service  of  God.  To  conscientious  and 
true  believers,  who  received  the  outward  rile  in 
testimony  of  their  faith,  God  promises  this,  "The 
Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thy  hearty  and  the 
heart  of  thy  seed."  For  what  purpose?  "To  love 
the  Lord  thy  God,  with  all  thy  heart,  tliatthou  may- 
est  live."  Deut.  xxx:  6.  Then,  tlie  outward  cir- 
cumcision in  the  flesh,  was  a  sign  that  signified  the 
circumcision  of  the  heart,  audit  was  this  spiritual  cir- 
cumcision which  introduced  a  man  to  the  covenant  of 
grace  and  all  its  blessings.  For  its  efi'ect  was,  "  that 
thou  mayestlove  the  Lord  thy  God  with'all  thy  heart." 

Thus,  it  is  evident,  in  getting  down  to  the  true 
nature  of  circumcision,  we  penetrate  through  the 
mists  and  shadows  of  the  ceremonial  Law,  and  find 
ourselves  standing  upon  precisely  the  same  founda- 
tion of  the  disciples  of  our  Lord.  "Well  then  does 
the  apostle  Paul  say  of  all  Christians,  they  "  stand 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles,"  and  is  this  all  ? 
If  BO,  we  have  made  no  progress  in  our  argument, 


19 

Ko.  This  is  not  all- — *'  are  bnilt  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  apostles,  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  being 
the  chief  corner  stone."     Eph.  ii :  20. 

Did  the  prophets — the  old  Je^vish  prophets,  who 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  stand  upon  the 
foundation  which  has  Jesus  Christ  for  its  comer 
stone  ?  Then  we  all  stand  together  there.  They  got 
upon  it  through  the  grace  ot  God,  and  entered  into 
visible  fellowship  with  the  saints  through  the  out- 
ward rite  of  circumcision.  We  get  upon  it,  through 
tlie  same  grace,  and  enter  into  visible  fellowship 
with  those  standing  there,  through  baptism.  What 
then  is  the  difference  ?  The  grace  is  the  same,  the 
effect  of  that  grace  the  same,  the  fellowship  the 
same,  the  foundation  the  same,  and  the  blessings  the 
same.  Well,  what  is  the  difference?  There  is  none, 
but  the  mode  of  introduction  into  the  visible  church. 
Tlie  ancient  people  came  by  circumcision,  we  by  bap- 
tism. The  Jiature  of  the  initiatory  rites  must  there- 
fore be  the  same. 

This  being  the  case,  what  does  the  apostle  Paul 
testify  ?  Why  this,  "  He  is  not  a  Jew,  who  is  one 
outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision,  which  is 
outward  in  the  flesh.  Bat  he  is  a  Jew.  who  is  one 
inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in 
the  Spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not 
of  men  but  of  God.'^ 

Xow  then,  if  circumcision  under  the  old  dispen- 
sation of    forms  and  ceremonies,  did   not  consist 


20 

merely  of  the  outward  sign,  but  had  a  spiritual 
meaning  under  the  sign,  which  must  be  reached,  in 
order  to  understand  its  nature  and  meaning,  much 
more  baptism,  under  the  simpler  form  of  the  church 
in  these  gospel  times. 

The  application  of  water  to  the  person  baptized, 
whether  by  sprmkling,  pouring,  or  immersion,  gives 
us  no  clue,  of  itself,  to  understand  the  nature  of  tlie 
rite. 

Every  body  sees  that  the  act  is  nothing,  and  yet, 
while  this  is  so,  all  the  circumstances  of  the  outward 
act,  are  necessary  to  baptism.  Each  of  the  five  fol- 
lowing things  are  neoessanj  to  the  outward  rite. — 1 . 
Water.  2.  Using  water,  either  by  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing or  immersion.  3.  By  a  minister.  4.  The 
words  of  institution,  or  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.  5.  The  minister  acting  in  his  ofHcial  char- 
acter. 

If  a  single  one  of  these  particulars  fail,  we  can- 
not have  the  outward  sign  of  baptism.  But  with  all 
of  them  combined,  we  find  no  intelligent  meaning,  if 
we  stop  with  the  outward  ordinance.  What  does 
all  this  mean,  is  the  natural  inquiry  tliat  constantly 
arises  in  the  mind  ?  If  it  ])e  said,  the  water  of  bap- 
tism cleanses  the  body,  the  objector  may  immediate- 
ly reply,  I  can  wash  better  at  home.  If  it  l)e  said, 
the  outv.-ard  ri{e  cleanses  the  soul,  he  may  reply,  it 
is  both  contrary  to  reason,  and  the  nature  of  things, 
that  water  applied  to  the  body,  siiould  cleanse  the 


21 

goiil.  But,  if  it  be  said,  this  is  a  sacrament  institu- 
ted by  God  himself,  every  body  who  believes  the 
statement,  is  prepared  to  find  a  sufficient  reason  in 
it,  for  God  is  always  wise. 

What- then  does  baptism  as  a  sacrament  mean  ? 

In  answer  to  this  question,  let  the  following 
thoiights  be  duly  considered  : 

Every  sacrament  implies  a  pre-existent  covenant, 
to  which  it  is  affixed,  and  every  covenant  supposes 
parties  covenanting. 

Baptism  then,  being  a  sacrament  to  a  covenant, 

necessarily  requires  a  suljject  covenanting. 

AYithout  a  subject  to  be  baptised,  there  can  be  no 
baptism,  and  this  subject  must  be  both  capcibU  of 

covenanting,  and  absolutely  covenanting.  We  can- 
not baptise  a  brute,  because  it  is  incapable  of  cove- 
nanting. We  cannot  baptise  a  man,  according  to  the 
intention  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  who  is 
unwilling  to  covenant  with  God,  because,  in  the  ve- 
ry nature  of  covenants,  it  is  necessary  that  the  par- 
ties be  free,  and  willing. 

Is  then,  baptism  a  sacrament  to  a  covenant  ?  Cer- 
tainly it  is.  For  when  the  penitents  of  Pentecost 
inquired,  ''Men  and  brethren  what  shall  we  do?'' 
Peter  replies,  ''^  Be  haptiscd  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Xow,  observe,  upon  what  he  bases  his  instruc- 
tion to  them  to  be  baptised.  "For"  says  he, 
"the  promise,"  i.  e.  covenant,  "is  unto  you,  and  to 


22 


your  cliildren,  and  to  all  afar  off,  even  to  as  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  Acts  ii,  38,  39,  Here 
then,  is  baptism,  distinctly  represented  as  a  sacra- 
ment to  a  covenant, — and  man  is  the  subject  of  the 
rite,  because  he  is  a  rational,  free  agent,  capable  of 
nnderstanding. 

Having  now  the  sacrament,  and  the  covenant,  and 
the  suljject — man,  are  we  ready  to  baptise  ?  i^o. 
Wliy  ?  Because  the  suhjeet  must  not  only  be  capa- 
ble, hut  fit.  "  Eejyent^  and  be  baptised,"  said  Peter, 
to  the  converts  of  Pentecost.  *'  If  thou  helievcst  with 
all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest,"  said  Philip  to  the  Eu- 
nuch. 

Man,  as  the  subject  of  baptism,  needs  to  have  two 
important  changes  pass  upon  him,  before  he  can  be 
fit  for  that  solemn  rite.  1.  He  needs  that  his  mind 
be  enlightened,  in' a  knowledge  of  the  covenant. — 
2.  He  needs  that  his  heart  be  made  willing  to  em- 
brace the  terms  of  the  covenant.  To  effect  these, 
God  has  given  the  Bible,  the  Church,  the  Ministry, 
the  preached  Gospel,  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Through  these  great  agencies,  God  designs  to  hold 
forth  his  covenant  of  life  to  the  intelligence  of  man, 
that  through  that  intelligence,  He  may  win  his  heart 
to  its  terms,  and  thus  he  be  made  j?z5  to  covenant  with 
God.  When  through  the  teaching  of  the  Word,  and 
experience  of  the  Spirit,  a  man  knows  the  covenant, 
and  does  actually  covenant,  then,  and  not  till  then, 


is  he  prepared  for  baptism,  wliicli  is  a  sacrament,  of 
the  covenant. 

A  person  thus  enlightened,  has  learned  to  love, 
desire,  and  long  after,  the  blessings  of  the  covenant. 
Thus  feeling,  he  seeks  a  public  recognition,  and  in 
baptism,  takes  his  place  in  the  visible  Church  of 
Christ,  professing  his  faith  in  Him,  and  vowing  to 
walk  with  Him  ''  in  newness  of  life." 

This  now  gives  a  meaning  to  baptism.  In  this 
light,  we  do  not  now  look  upon  it  as  a  superstition, 
or  a  mysterious  mummery,  but  an  intelligent  act, 
having  a  meaning — both  performed  and  received  for 
good  and  sufficient  reasons. 

Nor  is  this  all.  For  we  have  not  half  fathomed 
the  depth  of  the  meaning  of  this  glorious  institu- 
tion, if  we  stop  with  making  baptism  merely  an  ini- 
tiatory rite,  by  which  we  profess  Christ,  and  cove- 
nant to  obey  his  commands.  It  is  much  more  than 
this.  We  do  not  get  down  to  the  heart  of  the  mat- 
ter— the  moving,  stirring  life  of  the  institution,  if  we 
stop  here.  For  baptism,  as  a  sacrament  to  a  cove- 
nant, is  God's  sig7i  and  seal^  confirming  to  the^^ 
subject  thereof,  all  the  benefits  contained  therein. 

While  on  the  one  hand,  baptism  obliges  the  re- 
ceiver, to  walk  ^'  in  newness  of  life,"  it  at  the  same 
time,  imposes  upon  God,  the  covenant  obligation,  to 
make  good  to  such,  all  covenant  blessings.  Such  as 
a  justified  state — a  sanctified  heart — the  "forgive- 


24 

ness  of  sins,  the  resurrection  of  tlie  dead,  and  the  life 
everlasting." 

The  thing,  then,  signified  in  the  baptism  of  every 
believer,  is  just  this — The  reception  of  such  person 
into  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  it  is  administered  un- 
der the  'New  Testament.  ISTot,  by  any  means  that 
this  of  itself  puts  such  in  covenant  with  God,  but 
only  signifies  and  shows  forth  publicly  the  fact  of  a 
previous  covenant  relation. 

N'ow,  as  circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal  of  the 
covenant,  under  the  Old  Testament,  (see  Gen.  xvii : 
11;  Eom.  iv:  11,)  so  baptism  which  comes  in  its 
place,  (see  Col.  ii :  11,)  is  the  sign  of  God's  covenant, 
and  (as  the  great  Basil  says)  *'  the  inviolable  seal 
thereof." 

Reception  into  the  covenant  of  grace,  always  im- 
ports these  two  things,  and  it  matters  not  whether 
that  reception  dates  back  to  the  days  of  the  prophets, 
or  locates  itself  in  the  present  time. 

1.  Communion  with  Christ  and  his  Church,  and 
an  actual  participation  in  all  the  benefits  of  such  a 
state. 

2.  An  engagement  to  obedience  to  all  Christ's 
commands. 

Now,  that  both  of  these  are  sealed  in  baptism, 
there  can  be  no  question.  As  to  the  former,  the 
apostle  Paul  expressly  says  "we  are  baptised  into 
one  body,"  (1  Cor.  xii :  13.)   And  as  Christ  is  the  Head 


25 

of  that  body,  baptism  must  put  ne  iuto  communion 
with  Christ  and  his  church.  And  that  all  the  bene- 
%h  of  such  a  relation  are  sealed  unto  us,  will  ap- 
pear from  the  fact  that,  the  apostle  Peter  regard- 
ed them  as  so  sealed,  and  sure,  that  he  uses 
the  emphatic  language,  "  we  are  saved  by  baptism." 
Ist  Pet.  iii :  21.  Now,  whatever  may  be  the  critical 
interpretation  of  this  text,  there  can  be  no  question 
that  the  apostle  regarded  baptism  as  sealing  salva- 
tion to  all  true  believers. 

As  to  the  latter,  baptism  seals  our  obligation  to 
obedience^  because  the  apostle  Peter  describes  it  as 
*^  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  God."  Ist 
Pet.  iii :  21.  Baptism,  therefore,  forever  stands,  as 
the  "  inviolable  seal"  of  communion  with  Christ. 
I  say  it  seals  Christ,  dear  reader,  and  all  the  blee- 
dings that  are  in  Him.  The  application  of  the  wa- 
ter in  this  ordinance  is  God's  speahing  sign^  put  up- 
on the  person  of  the  believer,  signifying  to  him,  and 
the  church  that  God — the  God  of  the  covenant,  is 
his  God.  And  it  is  God's  seal,  in  its  spiritual  im- 
port, by  which  all  the  blessings  mentioned  in  the 
covenant  are  confirmed  unto  it. 


26: 


CHAPTEE  III. 

BAPTISM — ITS  MODE. 


Christian  baptism  was  not  given  to  the  church  as 
n. permanent  i7i8titution^  until  the  Saviour  about  to 
leave  the  world,  sent  forth  his  disciples  to  preach 
the  gospel.    Matt,  xxviii :  19. 

John's  baptism  was  given  of  God,  but  it  was  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  heralding  a  present  Saviour, 
and  crying  in  the  wilderness,  ^'  behold  the  Lamb  of 
God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  tlie  world."  It 
was  temporary,  and  designed  to  prepare  the  way 
for  Christ's  permanent  institution.  Nazianzinus  calls 
John  "  the  middle  person  between  the  Old  and  New 
Testament." 

Tertullian  says  of  him,  "he  was  the  boundary  set 
between  the  Old  and  New,  at  which  Judaism  should 
terminate,  and  from  which  Christianity  should  be- 

gin." 

John's  baptism  was  something  intermediate,  in- 
tended as  it  were,  to  break  the  severity  of  the  old 
rites,  and  prepare  the  minds  of  the  people  for  the 
simpler  forms  of  a  pure  Christianity. '   . 

"Whether  it  was  the  christian  baptism  or  not,  is  of 
little  consequence  to  determine,  though  there  can  be 
no   doubt  it  allied   itself  more  immediatelv  with 


27 

Christianity,  as  John  was  Christ's  immediate  fore- 
runner. 

John's  Baptism,  and  that  of  Christ's  Disciples,  be- 
fore the  gospel  commission  was  given,  were  design- 
ed to  prepare  the  way  fur  that  change  about  to  be 
effected,  in  the  visible  church,  when  her  sacraments 
— the  signs  and  seals  of  her  covenant,  should  be  so 
altered,  as  to  represent  a  Saviour  come,  atonement 
finished,  and  salvation  won. 

Now,  in  instituting  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  it 
is  only  reasonable  to  expect  that  a  wise  Saviour, 
knowing  its  great  importance  to  his  church  and  peo- 
ple, would  leave  nothing  essential  to  the  rite,  in  a 
state  of  obscurity.  But  this  most  manifestly  he  has 
done,  if  the  mode  of  applying  the  water  in  baptism 
is  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance.  For  in 
no  text  of  the  Bible,  is  it  said,  that  baptism  shall  be 
performed  by  immersion,  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  in 
any  other  mode.  jSTay,  further,  it  is  asserted,  and 
contradiction  is  challenged  here,  in  no  case  of  lap- 
tistn  recorded  in  the  Bible  is  it  said,  whether  the 
su})jeet  Jjaptized,  was  baptized  hy  immersion  or  in 
any  other  mode. 

Then,  we  think,  we  may  safely  commence  this 
discussion  by  saying,  that  our  Saviour  did  not  re- 
gard the  mode  of  baptism,  as  essential  to  the  rite. 

There  are  several  modes  of  baptism,  practised 
among  men  ;  such  as  sprinkling  or  pouring,  immer- 


28 

sion,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  the  use  of  oil,  salt, 
and  spittle. 

All  evangelical  churches  use  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing, except  the  Baptist.  This  uses  imniersion.  The 
Puseyite  the  sign  of  the  cross.  The  Roman  Cath- 
olic the  oil,  salt,  and  spittle. 

"We  haye  no  difficulty  in  distinctly  stating  it  as 
our  opinion  that  all  these  have  the  Christian  bap- 
tism, except  the  Eoman  Catholic*  As  Presbyteri- 
ans we  stand  pledged  by  our  book,  to  recognise  all 
the  rest,  as  churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  and  their 
members  as  brethren. 

In  discussing  then,  this  immaterial  point — the  vxode 
of  baptism,  we  do  not  wish,  or  intend,  to  unchurch 
any  who  differ  with  us,  nor  do  we  desire  to  write 
one  word  which  will  disturb  the  harmony  which  it 
lias  been  our  good  fortune  to  enjoy  with  brethren  of 
other  churches.  All  that  the  writer  of  these  pages 
intends,  is  to  assert  for  himself,  as  a  teacher  of  gos- 
pel truth,  the  fullest  liberty  of  investigation,  and 
when  he  thinks  he  has  arrived  at  the  meaning  of 
tlie  divine  word,  to  communicate  that  meaning  to 
his  own  people,  (and  all  others  who  shall  honor  him 
with  their  attention)  so  that  they,  and  the  standards 
of  our  church  shall  be  vindicated  from  any  charges 
of  unsoundness  that  may  be  brought  against  them. 

*  The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  at  their  rcs- 
sions,  in  Mav  1845,  decided  the  question,  "Is  baptism  in  the  church 
of  Rome  ralid?"  in  the  negative,  by  a  vote  of  173  to  8. 


29 

The  only  argument  we  shall  hiave  here,  will  bo  with 
our  Baptist  brethren,  and  this  by  a  kind  of  necessi- 
ty laid  upon  us.  For,  we  must  show  our  reasons  for 
the  views  we  Presbyterians  hold,  or  by  silence  seem 
ashamed  of  them,  or  afraid  to  assert  them. 

Just  here,  we  wish  to  pause,  while  we  ask  per- 
mission of  the  reader  to  say  a  few  things,  in  order 
that  we  may  place  ourself  right  with  him. 

We  distinctly  assert  that  we  have  no  controversy 
with  the  Baptist  Church,  in  the  odious  sense  of  that 
word.  We  believe  it  to  be  an  honored  church  of 
Christ.  We  would  not  injure  it  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree, if  we  could  ;  we  would  not  proselyte  one  of  its 
members.  We  would  not  take  from  it,  its  dearly 
beloved  Immersion.  We  have  no  sympathy  with 
those  bitter  controversialists  who  can  see  no  good  in 
it,  and  denounce  it  as  au  evil.  On  the  other  hand, 
we  regard  it  as  one  branch  of  the  family  of  Jesus, 
and  in  many  respects,  we  honor  it. 

Yes,  we  honor  the  Baptist  church,  and  bid  her 
God  speed  in  the  work  of  the  Master.  We  honor 
her  because  she  holds  a  pure  gospel — because,  with 
this  gospel  in  her  hand,  and  regulating  the  pulsa- 
tions of  her  great  heart,  with  Robert  Hall  at  her 
head  in  the  early  part  of  the  present  century  she  did 
much  to  drive  back  from  the  shores  of  England,  the 
invading  forces  of  French  Infidelity — because  she 
was  foremost  in  reviving  the  Protestant  church  to  a 
tense  of  its  obligations  to  the  perishing  heathen,  or- 


30 

ganised  the  first  Foreign  Missionary  Society  of  mod- 
ern times  in  England  ;  and  in  the  person  of  William 
Carey,  translated  the  Word  of  God  in  India,  so  as 
to  make  it  accessible  to  three  luindred  millions  of 
the  human  family,  or  one  third  of  our  race.  All 
honor  then,  to  that  church,  which  is  thus  highly  hon- 
ored of  God — the  pages  of  whose  history  are  illus- 
trated with  such  names  as  Carey  and  Fuller,  and 
Byland,  and  Flail  and  Judson,  and  Spurgeon. 

But  we  do  not  love,  and  we  have  no  patience  with 
that  spirit  of  bigotry  and  liiglichurcliism,  found 
among  many  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  which  seeks 
to  unchurch  portions  of  the  family  of  God,  as  good 
as  they,  and  cut  the  ties  of  christian  union  among 
Christ's  people,  and  that  too,  upon  a  point  of  com- 
paratively trilling  importance ;  and  that  we  are  not 
singular  in  the  opinion  that  these  sentiments  are  f/?- 
tolerant^  anti-chrlstian  sind  tmwlse,  will  appear  from 
the  testimony  of  many  of  the  wisest  and  best  men 
the  Baptist  church  has  ever  produced. 

As  a  specimen  of  this  testimony,  we  introduce  Rob- 
ert Hall  and  C.  FI.  Spurgeon  ;  the  first,  ranking 
with  the  most  learned,  eloquent,  and  pious  men  of  his 
day — the  latter,  we  believe  to  be  the  foremost  preach- 
er of  the  age.  Hall  says  "  the  policy  of  intolerance 
is  exactly  proportioned  to  the  capacity  of  inspiring 
fear.  The  Church  of  Eome  for  many  ages,  practis 
ed  it,  with  infinite  advantage,  because  she  possessed 
ample  means  for  intimidation.     But  what  was  policy 


31 

ill  her  would  be  the  height  of  infatuation  in  us,  who 
are  neither  entitled  by  our  situation,  nor  by  our 
crimes,  to  aspire  to  this  guilty  pre-eminence.     I  am 
fully  persuaded  that  few  of  our  brethren  have  duly  re- 
flected on  the  strong  resemblance  which  subsists  be- 
tween the  pretensions  of  the  church  of  Ivome  and  the 
principles  implied  in  strict  communion  ;  Ijoth  tqual- 
hj  intolerant  j  the  one  armed  wiih  pains  and  penal- 
ties; the  other,  I  trust,  disdaining  such  aid  ;  the  one, 
the  intolerance  of  power,  the  other  of  weakness." — 
Worhs^  vol.  1  p.  358.     Again,  in  accounting  fur  the 
fact  that  the  Baptist  church  has  not  come  up  to  her 
duty  in  the  measure  of  ics  success,  he  says,    "  J>nt 
though  we  have  not  "drunk  with  the  drunken,"  if  we 
liave  unwittingly  '^beaten  ourfcllowservants"  by  as- 
suming a  dominion  over  their  conscience;  if  we  have 
severed  ouj-selves  from  the  members  of  Chric^t  and 
under  pretence  of  preserving  the  purity  of  chri:itian 
ordinances,  violated  the  christian  spiiit ;  if  v;e  have 
betrayed  a  lamentable  want  of  that  -'love.,  which  is 
tlie  fulfilling  of  the  law,"  by  denying  a  ];lace  in  our 
churches  to  those  who  bebing  to  the  ''church  of  the 
first  born,"  and  straitening  their  avenue  till  it  has 
become  narrower  than  the  way  to  heaven,  we  may 
easily  account  for  all  that  has  follow^ed,  and  have 
more  occasion  to  be  surprised  at  the  compassionate 
Redeemer's  bearing  with  our  infirmilies,  than  at  his 
not  bestovring  a  signal  blessing  upon  our  labors." — 
Worlcs,  vol.  l,p.  390. 


3*2 

In  giving  ins  views  of  tlio  intolerance  of  the 
cliurch  of  England,  Spurgeon  says,  *'I  think  this 
bears  rather  liard  on  our  friends — the  strict  com- 
munion Baptists.  1  should  not  like  to  eay  any  thing 
liard  against  tliem,  for  they  are  about  the  best  peo- 
}>le  in  the  world;  but  they  really  do  separate  them- 
selves from  the  great  body  of  Christ's  people.  The 
Spirit  of  the  living  God  will  not  let  them  do  this  re- 
ally— but  they  do  it  professedly.  I  do  not  believe 
it  is  wilful  schism  tliat  makes  them  thus  act ;  but  at 
the  same  time,  I  think  the  old  man  within  has  some 
hand  in  it." 

As  to  the  matter  of  schism,  to  which  Spurgeon  al- 
ludes, let  the  following  illustration  be  considered: 

Two  ministers,  strangers  to  each  other,  and  educa- 
ted under  widely  different  circumstances,  are  pas- 
sengers together  on  a  vessel  at  sea,  which  is  wreck- 
oil  on  an  unknown  continent,  and  all  lost  but  them- 
selves. Their  desolate  condition  draws  them  very 
close!}'  together,  and  they  soon  know  and  love  each 
other.  With  hearts  burning  with  love  to  the  Saviour, 
and  the  perishing  around  them,  they  preach  togeth- 
er the  gospel  of  salvation;  many  are  converted 
and  the  time  comes  when  these  heathen  are  to  be 
received  by  baptism  into  the  visible  church.  It  is 
agreed  that  half  shall  be  baptised  by  one  of  these 
ministers,  and  the  rest  by  the  other. 

The  first  takes  his  subjects  into  the  middle  of  the 
fc^tream  and  immerses  them  ;  the  other  stands  upon 


33 

its  bank,  and  sprinkles  them.  After  the  ceremonr, 
minister  A  enquires  of  minister  B  why  he  does  not 
baptise  the  people.  B  replies,  I  have  done  so.  No, 
says  A,  you  have  only  sprinkled  them,  and  that  is 
not  baptism.  Neither  you  nor  yours  have  the  chris- 
tian institution,  you  cannot  come  with  us  to  the 
Lord's  table,  and  enjoy  there  the  communion  of 
saints.  But  replies  B,  let  us  not  fall  out  about  this, 
it  is  only  a  matter  of  opinion  between  us — our  Sa- 
viour left  no  express  direction,  I  acknowledge  your 
immersion  as  valid  ;  if  you  prefer  it,  practice  it.  I 
hope  you  will  extend  the  same  courtesy  to  me,  and 
let  us  live  and  labor  together  as  brethren.  No,  re- 
plies A,  we  cannot  live  or  labor  together,  we  can- 
not commune  together,  because  your  views  are  un- 
Bound  on  the  mode  of  baptism. 

Which  of  these  would  be  guilty  oi  schism  in  the 
body  of  Christ  ?  Let  the  impartial  reader  answer. 
Let  no  professed  disciple  of  Christ  think  the  sin  of 
Bchism  to  be  a  small  one.  It  is  pestilent,  ruinous  : 
and  let  it  be  observed  that  this  sin  does  not  consist 
alone  in  external  division.  The  worst  schism  is  that 
which  destroys  the  grace  of  charity  among  God's  peo- 
ple. "  Whatsoever  violates  this,  is  the  most  destruc- 
tive, moral  schism,  as  much  worse  than  an  unwilling 
breach  of  outward  order,  as  the  malicious  tearing  in 
pieces  a  man's  living  body,  is  worse  than  accidental 
tearing  of  his  clothes.  I  know  not  how  to  judge  of 
Christianity,  than  by  charity.     Xor  know  I,  when 


34 

among  them  that  profess  there  is  less  of  either,  than 
with  them  that  would  confine  and  engross  both  to 
their  several  parties  ;  that  say  here  is  Christ  and 
there  he  is;  and  will  have  the  notions  of  christian, 
of  saint,  of  church,  to  extend  no  farther  than 
their  own  arbitrarily  assigned  limits,  or  than  as  they 
are  pleased  to  describe  their  circle.  Nor  doth  it  sa- 
vor more  of  uncharitableness  in  any,  to  think  of 
enclosing  the  truth  and  purity  of  religion,  only  with- 
in their  own  precincts,  than  it  doth  of  pride  and 
vanity,  to  fancy  they  can  exclude  thence  every  thing 
of  offensive  impurity." — Rowers  Works^  vol,  1,  p^  483. 

Now,  we  design  in  this  discussion  to  occupy  B's 
place.  We  will  not  attack  A's  mode  of  baptism  by 
immersion,  as  not  christian,  and  therefore,  not  valid. 
We  acknowledge  its  validity.  What  we  shall  assert 
and  prove,  will  be  this,  that  our  mode  of  baptism  hy 
sjyrinkUng  is  as  good  as  his,  and  is  better  backed, 
both  by  the  letter,  and  spirit  of  Scripture^  and  then,  if 
he  insists  upon  it,  that  both  cannot  stand  together, 
we  shall  require  him,  in  the  name  of  our  common 
Master,  and  by  the  love  he  bears  his  cause,  to  unite 
with  us,  in  executing  the  great  commission,  "go 
teach  and  baptise  "  in  our  mode  of  sprinkling. 

The  subject  will  be  considered  in  the  following 
manner. 

1.  AV^e  shall  show  that  the  Saviour  has  left  no  ex- 
press direction  as  to  the  mode  of  applying  the  water 
in  baptism. 


'2.  IJis  intention  in  this. 

.3.  The  sources  of  inlbrniatiun  on  this  subject ; 
x\'hat  they  are,  and  what  they  teach. 

1.  The  commission  our  Saviour  gave  his  disciples, 
contains  no  specific  directions  as  to  the  mode  ol  bap- 
tising. The  direction  is  "go,  and  baptise";  and  as 
water  is  the  element,  the  whole  of  it  is  just  this,  "go 
baptise  with  water." 

'Not  only  so,  but  in  no  single  instance  of  baptism 
by  tlie  apostles,  under  the  eye  of  the  Master,  or  af- 
ter his  ascension  to  glory,  is  there  a  single  act  record- 
ed, or  circumstance  related,  that  proves  directly  any 
particular  mode  of  apjdying  the  water  in  baptism. 
To  prove  this,  the  fact  need  only  be  stated,  which  it 
is  su[)posed  will  not  be  disputed,  that  although  the 
mode  of  baptism  has  been  canvassed  in  the  church 
for  centuries,  by  the  ablest  minds  and  ripest  schol- 
ars, not  one  of  them,  has  ever  been  able  to  bring 
forward  any  direct^  positive  jiroqf  in  favor  of  any  par- 
ticular mode.  Kow,  what  does  this  prove,  but  that 
the  Saviour  did  not  mean  to  confine  the  administra- 
tion of  the  ordinance  to  any  particalar  mode,  lest 
weak  man  should  make  baptism  to  consist  in  the 
mode,  and  thus  exalt  the  outward  sign,  to  the  im- 
portance and  dignity  of  the  thing  signified? 

2.  Several  explanations  may  be  given  of  the  fact, 
that  our  Saviour  did  not  give  express  directions  on 
this  subject,  each  of  them  going  to  show  us  his  in- 
tention in  this  matter. 


S6 

Ist.  Water  baptism  represents  to  us  a  great  spir- 
itual mystery,  i.  e.  soul pxmfication^  effected  througli 
the  blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ.  '^\\^  force  of  the  figure 
lies  in  the  application  of  pure  water  to  the  person 
of  the  subject,  not  in  the  amount  of  water  used,  or 
in  the  manner  of  using  it.  For  as  water  cleanses 
the  defilements  of  the  body,  so  the  blood  of  Christ 
those  of  the  soul.  And  as  the  efficacy  of  Christ's 
blood  to  cleanse  the  soul,  depends  not  upon  the 
amount  shed,  but  upon  its  intrinsic  value,  so  the  ef- 
ficacy of  the  water  representing  it,  depends  not  up- 
on its  quantity,  but  upon  its  pureness. 

Accordingly  it  is  well  said  by  Dominions  A.  Soto, 
as  quoted  by  Witsius,  ''  In  baptism  there  is  some- 
thing essential^  as  the  washing  with  water,  and  some- 
thing accidental  as  the  washing  in  this  or  that  man- 
n^r."  Our  blessed  Saviour  then,  no  doubt  intended 
by  leaving  his  disciples  without  express  instruction 
as  to  the  mode,  to  teach  them  that  baptism  consist- 
ed in  the  washing,  not  in  the  mode  of  doing  it. 

He  intended,  therefore,  to  call  ofi"  their  minds 
from  the  "accidental"  and  fix  them  upon  the  e5^<jn^ia?, 
80  that  scope  might  thus  be  given  to  the  outgoing  of 
their  mutual  charity,  and  there  be  no  schism  in  the 
body  of  Christ. 

2nd.  The  reason  why  he  laid  no  great  stress  upon 
the  mode  of  applying  the  water  in  baptism,  will  ap- 
pear from  the  fact  that  he  intended  that  the  ordi- 


ST 

tiance  should  go,  where  his  ministers  and  the  gospel 
went,  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

But  if  our  wise  Redeemer  had  so  tied  baptism  txi 
immersion,  that  there  could  not  be  one,  without  the 
other,  then  he  would  have  placed  a  very  great,  if 
\iot  insuperable  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  progress 
of  his  cause,  in  many  portions  of  the  earth.  Among 
the  mountains  of  Lapland,  and  in  the  frozen  seas  of 
the  Poles,  immersion  cannot  go,  as  a  permanent  in- 
stitution. Into  the  sandy  deserts  of  Asia  and  Afri- 
ca it  cannot  penetrate  and  remain,  for  there  is  no 
water  for  immersion. 

Now,  by  the  sure  word  of  prophec}^  and  promise, 
*'  all  nations'"  must  be  baptized — must  feel  the  puri- 
fying touch  of  the  water  of  life.  By  the  decree  of 
the  great  God,  and  by  the  sure  and  irresistible  march 
of  gospel  truth,  ^*  Greenland's  icy  mountains,  and 
India's  coi-ai  strands,"  and  Afric's  sandy  deserts,  are 
all  obliged  to  feel  the  tread  of  the  victorious  soldiers 
of  the  cross.  Their  benighted  populations  are  oblig- 
ed to  hear  the  story  of  the  crucified  One,  from  the 
lips  of  the  dauntless  missionary,  and  they  will,  un- 
der the  Truth  that  wins  and  conquers  every  where, 
seek  admission  to  the  fellowship  of  the  saints,  in  the 
visible  church.  But  if  in  Greenland  they  are  com- 
pelled to  wait  till  the  streams  are  thawed,  or  in  In- 
dia and  Africa  until  streams  are  opened  in  the  de- 
Bert,  they  will  wait  a  long  time. 


88 

But  on  the  other  hand,  if  sprinkling  is  allowable!^ 
if  baptism  may  be  performed  in  this  way,  then  the 
missionary  no  sooner  finds  fit  subjects  for  the  rite, 
than  with  the  aid  of  fire,  from  the  jagged  ice,  he  has 
jiis  water  at  hand,  or  if  he  has  no  fire,  then  a  hand- 
ful of  snow,  held  for  a  moment  in  his  hand,  furnishes 
liim  his  element  for  baptism.  Or  if  pursuing  a  tent 
life  with  the  wandering  Arab  or  African,  where  no 
streams  are  found,  no  sooner  does  he  find  a  fit  sub- 
ject for  baptism,  than  in  the  canteens  or  skins  of  the 
wanderers,  he  finds  water  enough  to  administer  the 
rite.  These  facts,  it  is  thought,  show  most  conclu- 
ively,  that  it  was  never  the  intention  of  the  Saviour 
to  make  immersion  necessary  to  baptism. 

But  after  all,  this  is  purely  a  Scripture  question, 
and  can  never  be  adjusted,  except  by  a  direct  appeal 
to  the  Word  of  God.  What  then  say  the  Scriptures  ? 
This  brings  ns  directly  to  our  third  division — the 
sources  of  information  on  this  subject,  and  what  they 
teach. 

Here,  our  appeal  is  directly  to  the  Scripture.  But 
as  we  have  shown  that  the  Scriptures  contain  no  di- 
rect and  positive  proof  in  favor  of  any  particular 
mode,  we  will  have  to  content  ourselves  with  cir- 
cnmstantial  or  inferential  proof.  And  this  kind  of 
proof  is  sometimes  as  satisfactory,  and  often  as  far  as 
man  is  concerned,  more  reliable  than  any  other. — 


S9 

Por,  as  the  law  sayS)  "circumstances  never  lie,  wit- 
nesses may." 

This  proof  will  arrange  itself  under  the  three  fol- 
lowing heads : 

1.  Words  used  in  speaking  of  the  institution. 

2.  Circumstances  in  which  the  ordinance  was  ad- 
ministered by  inspired  men. 

3.  IFigures  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  speaking  of 
baptism. 

In  each  of  these,  the  careful  reader  will  find  the 
mass  of  truth  to  be  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  as  the 
Scripture  mode  of  baptism. 

1.  The  words  used  in  Scripture  in  speaking  of 
this  ordinanccv 

The  word  upon  which  the  chief  stress  is  laid  in  this 
discussion,  is  the  Greek  word  '■^ Baptizo.^^  The  pre- 
positions "Ek,"  "Eis,"  "Apo,"  and  "En,"  also 
hold  an  important  place.  We  have  asserted,  and 
we  think  proved  that  our  Saviour  did  not  exjjvessly 
teach  any  particular  mode  of  baptism. 

This  proposition  will 'now  require  us  to  show 

1.  That  '''  Baptizo^^  when  used  in  the  Bible,  in 
connection  with  the  institution  of  Christ,  refers  tx> 
the  institution,  and  not  to  the  mode  of  applying  the 
water. 

2.  When  it  is  used  in  the  Scriptures,  it  very  often 
bears  along  with  it  a  very  different  idea  from  that  of 
immersion. 

It  is  thought  important  that  the  reader  notice  dis- 


40 

Knctly  our  petition  here.  We  do  not  assert  tliaf. 
^'haptiso  "  never  means  immersion ;  on  the  contrary, 
we  think  it  often  means  this,  ^ay^  that  its  primary 
meaning  is  to  immerse.  But  what  we  say,  is  this, 
that  it  often  meaiis  smnethiiig  else^  and  very  differ- 
ent fro-m  immei'se  ;  and  according  ta  the  n^ind  of  the 
Spirit,  conveyed  to  us  in  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  it  simply  means  to-  loasJi^  to  cleanse, — 
Pictet  says,  "the  Hebrew  word  which  the  Septua- 
giut  renders  haptizein^  (2  Kings  v:  14)  is  taken  for  a 
Hebrew  word  which  means  to  wash ;  hence,  the 
word  Jyaptizein^  is  simply  used  for  to  wash. — Theolo- 
gy iP-^^^- 

As  applied  to.  the  rite  of  baptism,  it  means  th^fact 
of  cleansing ,  and  7iot  the  mode  by  which  it  is  done. 

TiiiSy  we  think,  is  the  ground  taken  by  our  Con- 
fession, on  this  subject.  That  is  a  slander  upoui  out* 
church  wliich  represents  it  as  holding  that  all  modes 
but  its  own  are  unscriptural,  and  therefore,  to  be  de- 
nounced. Tlie  great  men  who  formed  our  Book 
were  loo  wise  of  head,  and  large  of  heart,  to  think  of 
sundering  the  ties  of  christian  fellowship  upon  tho 
minor  point  of  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  their  language 
accordingly  i&y  "-dipping  the  person  in  water  is  not 
'necessary  '^  but  baptism  is  tightly  administered  by 
pouring  or  sprinlding  water  upon  the  person.'^ — 
Con.  Faith,  cliap>.  28,  sec.  3.  This  was  the  view  ta- 
ken of  this  subject  by  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Witsius. 
Neither  of  these  great  men  ever  taught  (as  some  de- 


41 

sire  to  make  them)  that  ^^haptizo''  meant  only  im- 
mersion, and  ahoays  immersion.  Luther's  works 
are  not  before  us,  but  Dr.  Fuller  quotes  him  as  say- 
ing "Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  may  mean  im- 
mersion." But  he  does  not  say  it  alivays,  but  only 
may  mean  immersion. 

Calvin  says,  Institutes,  chap.  15,  Sec  19,  '''  Bo/p- 
Ubo^''  signifies  to  immerse,  and  the  rite  of  immersion 
was  practiced  by  the  ancient  church."  But  does 
Calvin  say  that  haptho  always  means  immersion? 
Does  he  say  that  the  ancient  church  always  practiced 
immersion,  and  regarded  every  other  m.ode  of  bap- 
tism invalid  ?  jSTo,  he  says  no  such  thing.  What 
then,  is  his  testimony  on  this  point?  As  he  is  a  wit- 
ness put  on  the  stand  by  our  Baptist  brethren,  let  us 
have  hig  whole  testimony.  Listen  to  him.  "But 
whether  the  pei"8on  who  is  baptised,  be  wholly  im- 
mersed, or  whether  thrice,  or  once,  or  whether  wa- 
ter be  only  pouf^ed  or  sprinkied  upon  him,  is  of  no 
iiThportanee.  Churches  are  at  liberty,  in  this  respect, 
to  act  according  to  the  diiference  of  countries." 

Wiiat  says  Wifeius,  the  most  learned  divine  since 
Calvin?  "Though  J'^^?^/^6m  propeHy  signifies  to 
plunge,  or  dip,  yet  it  is  also  inore  generally  used  for 
any  washing y—  Witsius''  Eoon.  of  Gov.  B.  ^y.,  cli.  16, 
uec.  11. 

All  that  is  meant  to  be  shown  here,  is,  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  through  her  Confession,  and 
the  great  and  good  men  whose  words  we  haye  (juo- 


42 

ted,  regarded  the  religious  meaninq  of  hajptizo^  as  it 
is  connected  with  the  institution  of  Christ,  as  any 
wctshing  vjith  water  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 
The  attention  of  the  candid  reader  is  also  called  to 
the  following  remarks  taken  from  one  of  the  most 
learned  works  issued  from  the  press  of  this  country, 
Com.  on  the  Acts,  by  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander,  vol.  1, 
p.  84  :  "  Even  granting^  that  this  Greek  verb  orig- 
inally meant  to  immerse,  i.  e.  to  dip  or  plunge — a 
fact  which  is  still  earnestly  disputed, — it  does  not 
follow  that  this  is  essential  to  its  meaning,  as  a  pe- 
culiar christian  term.  On  the  contrary,  analogy 
would  lead  us  to  suppose,  that  like  other  Greek  terms, 
thus  adopted,  it  had  undergone  some  modification 
of  its  etymological  and  primary  import.  As  Pres- 
byter no  longer  suggests  personal  age,  nor  Deacon, 
menial  service,  nor  Supper  a  nocturnal  meal,  as  ne- 
cessary parts  of  their  secondary  christian  meaning, 
why  should  this  one  word  be  an  exception  to  the 
general  rule,  and  signify  a  rnere  mode  of  action,  as 
not  less  essential  than  the  act  itself?  Even  if  it 
could  be  shown  that  immersion  was  the  universal 
practice,  both  of  Jews  and  Christians,  it  would 
prove  no  more  than  the  universal  practice  of  recli- 
ning at  meals,  and  mixing  wine  with  water.'- 

Dr.  Fuller  says  :  "In  commanding  his  disciples  to 
be  baptised,  Jesus  knew  what  act  he  enjoined,  and 
he  could  be  at  no  loss  for  a  word  clearly  to  express 
bis    meaning."     Certainly   this    is   so.     "If  Jesug 


meant  immerse,  and  nothing  else,  the  word  was 
haptizoy  Certainly  if  he  meant  iminerse^  but  that  is 
the  very  point  in  debate.  Did  he  mean  immerse  ? 
We  would  like  to  ask  the  Doctor  if  Jesus  meant 
neither  of  the  modes  specified,  or  all^  what  word 
would  he  then  have  used?  Why,  the  very  word 
he  has  used,  laptizo^  for  that  in  the  Scripture  usage 
means  either^  and  covers  all  the  rest. 

This  we  now  proceed  to  prove,  and  we  ask  the 
candid  reader  to  take  his  Bible,  and  turn  to  the  pas- 
sages, as  we  progress  in  this  discussion.  In  Heb. 
ix:  10,  we  read  about  the  Jewish  "service,"  which 
the  apostle  says  ''stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks, 
and  divers  washhigsy  ''Baj)tis77iois,^'  divers  bap- 
tisms. Does  the  word  here  mean  only  immersion  ! 
T3efore  this  can  be  made  to  appear,  it  must  be  shown 
that  in  the  Jewish  service  there  were  no  washings, 
but  by  immersion,  which  can  never  be  done. 

Mark  vii:  4,  we  read,  "And  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  wash,"  '-^haptisontair — - 
baptise,  "they  eat  not."  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
washing,"  ipajytismous^  baptisms,)  of  cups  and  pots, 
and  brazen  vessels  and  tables." 

Kow,  these  are  some  of  the  items  of  the  Jewish 
service,  to  which  the  apostle  alludes  above.  Does 
not  the  word  here  mean  to  wash  f 

Luke  xi :  38,  "  And  when  tlie  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marveled,  that  he  had  not  first  washed,"  (ebaptisthe, 


baptized)  before  dinner."  We  submit  these  passages 
to  any  impartial  man,  to  saj,  whether  they  mean 
immersion. 

"  The  Pharisees,  when  they  come  from  market, 
except  they  hajytize^  eat  not."  Hence  tlie  Pharisee 
marveled  at  our  Lord,  because  he  haptized  not  be- 
fore dinner.  Now,  if  "  hcvptizo'^  here  means,  to 
wash^  the  meaning  is  very  plain.  But  if  as  our  Bap- 
tist friends  say,  it  means  immersion,  then  the  mean- 
ing is  very  obscure,  if  it  bas  any  at  all.  With  this 
rendering  of  tlie  word,  their  new  version  of  tbe  Bi- 
ble, will  read  thus,  "The  Pharisees  when  they  come 
from  market,  except  they  immerse  themselves,  eat 
not,"  "  and  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marveled 
that  he  had  not  first  immersed  himself,"  and  then 
tlieir  translation  will  state  a  very  questionable  thing, 
for  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Pharisees  immersed 
themselves  before  meals,  and  then  it  would  not  be 
true,  that  this  Pharisee  marveled  at  our  Lord,  be- 
cause he  had  not  first  immersed  himself. 

But  if  it  be  said  that  the  above  texts  refer  to  the 
tradition  of  the  elders  mentioned  by  Matt,  xv  :  2, 
and  alludes  to  the  washing  of  the  hands,  and  when 
we  wash  our  hands,  we  dip  them  in  water,  I  reply, 
that  we  may  v/ash  tlje  hands  either  by  dipping,  or 
pouring  water  upon  them,  and  the  fact  of  washing 
determines  nothing,  as  to  the  mode  in  which  this  \9 


45 

done*'  Besides,  even  if  we  allow  that  washing 
cannot  possibly  be  done  except  by  dipping,  still,  if 
we  dip  in  order  to  baptize  (wash)  then  it  is  very  cei*- 
tain  that  there  is  a  difference  between  dipping  and 
baptizing^  for  baptizing  (washing)  is  the  end^  dipping 
t?ce  means  to  that  end.  It  is  however  a  matter  of 
very  little  consequence  how  they  baptized  (washed) 
their  hands,  for  the  word  ^^  hapjtizd'^  here  clearly  ex- 
presses the  thing  done  i.  e.  the  washing,  and  not  the 
manner  of  doing  it. 

Again,  John  in  speaking  of  his  baptism,  and  that 
of  the  Saviour,  uses,  with  respect  to  both,  the  same 
word,  ^'  haptizo  ;"  if  therefore,  it  refers  to  the  mode^ 
and  means  immersion  in  the  case  of  John,  so  also  in 
that  of  our  Saviour,  Luke  iii :  16,  "I  indeed  bap- 
tize (bapiizo)  you  with  water;  but  one  mightier 
than  I  cometh,  he  shall  baptize  {})ap>ti3o)  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 

I^ow,  dear  reader,  let  us  read  this  text  according 

•  There  is  a  passage  in  2nd  Kings,  iii :  11,  which  doubtless  has^ap- 
peared  strange  to  many,  and  which  we  think  throws  light  on  thi» 
aubject.  The  passage  refers  to  a  part  of  the  office  of  Elisha  as  ser- 
rant  to  Elijah.  King  Jehoshaphat  asks,  "  Is  there  not  here  a  prophet 
of  the  Jews  'f  and  is  answered  "  Here  is  Elisha,  who  poured  water 
on  the  hands  of  Elijah,''''  i.  e.  who  was  his  servant.  Here  the  wash- 
ing was  by  pouring.  In  reference  to  this  washing  of  hands,  "Pitts. 
Acco.  Mo.  Rd."  Page  24  has  this,  "  Bt-fore  they  rise  from  meat,  x 
servant  steps  into  the  middle  of  the  company  with  a  basin  of  water, 
Uke  a  coffee  pot,  and  lets  the  water  run  upon  their  hands,  one  afl«v 
another  as  they  eU." 


4^ 

to  the  theory  of  our  Baptist  friends,  and  see  wliai 
we  shall  make  of  it.  Remember  Dr.  Fuller  says, 
"  baptiso^^  ]\iQt  means  immersion,  and  nothing  else, 
and  refers  to  the  mode.  "  1  indeed  immerse  you 
with  water ;  but  he  shall  immerse  you  with  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost  and  with  fire.'' 

Paraphrased  according  to  this  rendering,  it  would 
i-ead  thus,  I  indeed  according  to  my  7node  of  bap- 
tism, immerse  you  with  water,  Christ  according  to 
his  mode  of  baptism  shall  immerse  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire. 

Kow  it  is  very  evident,  this  is  a  most  forced,  un- 
natural, and  untrue  construction.  There  are  threvj 
reasons  that  must  destroy  it. 

1st.  We  have  no  account  in  all  the  Scripture  of 
any  being  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

2nd.  We  have  no  information  from  Scripture  of 
any  man,  dipped,  plunged,  immersed  in  fire,  by  our 
Saviour,  but  the  finally  damned. 

3rd.  The  very  construction  destroys  itself,  for  it 
gives  up  the  point  in  debate.  What  is  the  point! 
Why,  whether  haptizo  refers  to  the  mode  or  institu- 
tion of  baptism.  To  show  that  haptizo  refers  to  the 
mode,  our  Baptist  friends  make  John  say,  I  immerse 
you  with  water,  Christ  shall  immerse  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.  E^ow  let  it  be  asked, 
why  does  John  immerse  with  water  ?  The  answer 
is,  to  baptize:  why  does  Christ  immerse  with  the  Hol^ 
Ghost  ?     The  answer  is,  to  baptize. 


*7 

Then  tliere  is  a  difference  according  to  their  own 
showing  between  immersion  and  baptism.  They 
are  two  things,  distinct  and  different ;  immersion  is 
not  baptism,  and  baptism  is  not  immersion.  Kow 
see  how  much  more  simple  and  natural  our  construc- 
tion of  this  passage  is:  "I  indeed  baptize  (wash, 
cleanse)  you  with  water,  but  there  cometh  one  after 
me,  lie  shall  baptize  (wash,  cleanse)  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  This  reading  abstracts 
our  minds  from  the  "  accidentaP'  mode,  and  fixea 
tJiem  upon  the  "  essential"  baptismal  cleansing. 

But  there  is  another  view  of  this  case,  which  not 
only  strengthens,  but  confirms  our  view  of  Baptism. 
How  was  the  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  which 
John  refers,  described  before  John's  day  ?  — 
What  language  was  used  by  the  Prophets  respect- 
ing it?  and  how^  was  this  baptism  to  be  performed? 
Let  us  see,  God  speaking  by  the  mouth  of  the  Pro- 
phet Isaiah  says,  "  For  I  will  pour  water  upon  him 
that  is  thirsty.  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed." 
Isa.  xliv :  3. 

This  is  a  promise  to  God's  people,  in  gospel  times. 
'*  I  will  pour  ivater^  I  will  pour  my  Spirit.'^  Here 
is  a  direct  allusion  to  baptism,  and  it  refers  imm^- 
diately  to  what  John  says  Christ  will  do.  Is  there 
then  here  the  least  hint  at  immersion  ?  Certainly  not. 
But  let  it  be  distinctly  noticed,  that  this  prophetio 
promise  embraces  in  its  ample  scope  not  only  "  him 
that  is  thirsty,"  but  also  "  thy  seed."     Here  then  is 


4S 

gospel  baptism  by  pourhig^  reachinpj  expressly  to 
the  children  of  believers. 

Again,  Isa.  lii :  15,  "  He,"  i.  e.  Christ,  "  shall 
sjyrinkle  many  nations."  This  is  another  })rophecj 
running  directly  in  the  line  of  John's  promise.  Is 
there  any  allusion  to  immersion  here?  No.  More 
than  600  years  before  his  coming,  Isaiah  cries,  in  the 
language  of  inspired  prophecy  "  He  shall  sprinhU 
many  nations,"  and  John,  Christ's  immediate  fore- 
runner, takes  up  the  prophecy,  and  applies  it  to 
Christ,  in  the  language  "  He  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  The  two  together 
amount  to  a  demonstration  in  favor  of  sprinkling. 

Again  God  says  by  the  mouth  of  Ezekiel,  ''I  will 
sprmlde  clear  water  upon  you,  and  I  will  cleanse 
you.'^'^  The  sprinkling  and  cleansing  are  the  same. 
All,  I  believe  admit,  that  this  promise  refers  to  gos- 
pel times.  John  applies  it,  "  He,"  i.  e.  Christ  "  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire." 

Here  again  by  inspired  nien^  sprinkling  and  bap- 
tizing are  connected,  but  there  is  nothing  said  about 
immersion. 

Passing  the  burying  ground  of  the  old  propheti 
and  the  sepulchre  of  glorious  old  John,  we  come 
and  take  our  stand  among  the  generations  when  the 
Prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel  locate  themselves, 
and  enquire,  are  there  any  voices  that  come  to  us  in 
the  same  strain?  Yes,  listen  !  From  the  throbbing 
heart  of  the  church,  this  song  bursts,  "  We  are  com« 


49 

to  Jesus  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant." — 
This,  then,  was  Isaiah's  and  Ezekiel's  glorious 
Sprinlier  and  John's  mighty  Baptizer.  Bat  in  com- 
ing to  the  Sprinkler,  Baptizer,  and  Mediator,  was 
that  all  the  Church  had  to  sing  of?  No  :  "  And  to 
the  hloocl  of  sprinkling^  which  speaketh  better  things 
than  that  of  Abel."  Heb.  xii :  24.  The  climax  of 
the  song  is,  that  they  had  come  through  the  Medi- 
ator, to  haptisnial — spriiikled  hlood^  or  sprinkled, 
washing,  cleansing  blood. 

And  if  we  wish  to  know  who  these  are  that  sing, 
the  apostle  will  answer,  "  Elect,  unto  obedience  and 
sjjrinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  1st  Pet, 
i:  2. 

Now,  that  we  are  not  mistaken  in  applying 
these  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  to  that  bap- 
tism which  John  asserted  for  Jesus  Christ,  will  ap- 
pear, if  we  inquire  hov/,  in  what  manner,  or  mode, 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  performed. 

What  saith  the  Scripture  ?     "  But  ye  shall  receive 

power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  iqyon  yoic^ 

Acts  i :  8.     No  immersion  here,     "  Therefore  being 

by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received 

of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he 

hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  see  and  hear."    Acts 

ii :  33.     "  As  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell 

on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning."     Acts  xi  :  15. 

"  And  they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed  were 

6 


50 

astonished,  because  that  on  the  CTentiles  was  poured 
Old  tlie  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'- 

We  learn  from  these  passages  of  Scripture,  that 
the  baptism  of  which  John  speakg  as  performed  by 
Jesus  Christ,  "  comes  upon,"  "  falls  upon,"  is  "  pour- 
ed out,"  but  in  all  this  there  is  not  the  slightest  alhi- 
sion  to  immersion. 

We  ask  then,  in  view  of  these  Scriptures,  what 
does  God  witness  as  to  baptism  ?  We  answer,  most 
clearly  that  it  means  to  wash^  to  cleanse.  What  does 
lie  witness  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  purifying 
power  comes  to  the  soul  ?  We  answer,  his  witness 
is,  that  it  ^' comes  ujyon,-^  "falls  upon,"  "  is  poured 
out."  Why  then,  as  water  baptism  is  only  an  em- 
blem of  this,  we  have  the  testimony  of  God  m  favor 
of  sprinkling,  and  this  far  exceeds  the  testimony  of 
all  the  lexicographers  in  the  world  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion. 

What  then  is  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter? 
Just  this:  That  '^ haj>tizo^'  used  in  a  Scripture  sense 
to  express  this  ordinance,  means  washing  only ^  Kud. 
has  no  reference  to  any  particular  mode.  It  neither 
means  immersion,  sprinkling,  nor  pouring,  for  these 
are  only  different  ways  of  washing.  But  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  is  expressly  called  sprinlclmg.  As 
to  the  Greek  prepositions,  on  which  so  much  stress 
is  laid  in  this  discussion,  we  have  this  ^:o  remark  ; 
nothing  can  be  made  of  them,  to  determine  one  way 
or  the  other,  in  favor  of  any  mode  of  baptism,  for 


51 

they  all  have  so  many  meanings,  that  no  wise  schol- 
ar will  attempt  to  confine  them  to  any  particular 
signification  in  all  cases.  Their  meaning  varies  ac- 
cording to  the  relation  they  bear  to  the  sense  when 
they  occur. 

Take  for  instance  the  prepositions  *'  Eis'"'  and  "^/i," 
and  let  us  see  what  bearing  they  have  upon  the 
mode  of  baptism.  The  baptism  of  the  eunuch  by 
Philip  is  a  case  in  point,  Acts  viii :  38.  "They 
went  down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the 
Eunuch  and  he  baptized  him." 
,  Xow  our  opponents  find  here  one  uf  their  strong- 
est passages.  They  ask,  does  not  the  Bible  say 
'•'  went  down  into  the  water,"  and  if  they  went  *•  in- 
to the  water,"  what  did  they  go  for  but  that  the  Eu- 
nuch might  be  immersed  ^ 

Here  our  opponents  say  is  {mf/ie/'sio?i,  and  it  is 
not  worth  while  to  deny  it,  and  it  is  only  a  cavil  to 
do  so. 

But  let  us  look  at  the  words  in  the  original  lan- 
guage, and  see  if  we  who  sprinkle  have  not  occasion 
to  complain  of  the  translators.  They  went  down 
"  eis to  h udor^  ''into  the  water."  But "  ^/V  means  to^ 
unto^  as'well  as  into. 

This  we  prove  from  tlie  following  three  texts :  1st. 
Matt,  vi :  26,  *'  Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air"  ifec.  The 
original  is  ■"  emblepsate  eis.''''  "  Look  unto  the  fowls 
of  the  air."  Here  it  means  unto  and  not  into.  2nd. 
Matt-  xxi :  1,  "  and  when  they  drew  nigh  unto  ("t^/V') 


52 

Jcrr.salem,  and  were  come  to  ("6^V')  Betbpage. 
Here  it  is  to^  and  not  into.  3rd.  John  xx  :  3,  4, 
"  So  the,y  ran  both  together,  and  the  other  disciple 
did  outrun  Peter,  and  came  first  "  e/«"  to  the  se- 
pulchre/^ Here  it  is  to^  and  not  into.  Here 
then  in  all  these  texts,  and  many  others  that 
might  be  cited,  the  translators  give  "^Z^"  the 
meaning  of  to^  and  iinto.^  and  yet,  as  if  to  ac- 
commodate our  Baptist  friends,  in  the  transaction 
of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  they  translated  it  into. 
Surely  we  have  reason  to  complain,  but  we  will  not, 
for  we  know  that  it  bears  various  meanings.  Only 
read  the  text  with  "  m"  translated  to  or  unto^  and 
all  the  immersion  gloss  is  taken  off. 

All  we  intend  however  to  show  is,  that  nothing 
can  be  proved  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  from  the 
rendering  of  any  of  the  Greek  prepositions. 

Before  dismissing  this  part  of  the  subject,  we  must 
notice  a  Baptist  comment  on  "  enP  An  author  of 
that  church  cites  eleven  texts  of  Scripture,  '4n  all 
of  which  except  two,  and  thousands  of  others  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  Greek  word  "  {???"  is  rendered 
in  by  the  translators  of  the  English  version.  In  two 
instances  "  ^?i"  is  rendered  loltJi^  that  is  loltli  wate7\ 
instead  of  in  icater.  and  the  said  rendering  tends  to 
obscure  the  meaning  greatly." 

Xow,  it  is  only  the  one  saying  of  Jolm  the  Bap- 
tist, which  the  two  evangelists,  Matthew  and  Mark 
record,  in   different  languages,  and  which  is  here 


53 

compiainea  ot.  Matthew  has  this  'i  indeed  uap- 
tize  jou  ("  g?i")  with  water — he  shall  baptize  jou 
("f7i")  loith  the  Holy  Ghost"  iii :  11. 

Mark  i :  8,  ''I  indeed  have  baptized  you  {"'  e?i") 
with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  ("  6/?,")  with  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

^'  Does  "  671'^  translated  with^  obscure  the  mean- 
ing ?     We  think  not. 

But  let  us  try  the  other  translation.  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  "  m"  or  "  into'^  water,  but  there  cometh 
one  after  me,  He  shall  baptize  you  ''  zV  or  "  into''' 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  "  into'''  lire."  Does  this  re- 
move the  obscurity?  Does  it  not  increase  it  a  hun- 
dred fold  ?  What  I  Jesus  baptize  a  man  in  or  into 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  into  fire  ! !  In  all  the  history 
of  the  church,  who  ever  heard  of  such  a  case  ?  In 
all  the  manifold  workings  of  Christian  experience, 
when  is  the  occasion  on  which  Christ  baptizes  m,  or 
into  the  Holy  Ghost  and  into  fire? 

The  baptism  of  Jesus  Christ  by  John,  is  another 
place  where  our  Baptist  friends  gladly  avail  them- 
selves of  our  common  version,  though  they  abuse  it 
in  other  places.  Matthew  iii:  16,  it  is  said,  "  Jesus 
after  his  baptism  went  up  straightway  "  apo  tou  hu- 
datos'''  out  of  the  water."  But  ''^  apo  means  from 
as  well  as  "  out  of^'  as  any  Greek  Lexicon  will  show. 
The  text  read  with  this  rendering,  takes  off  all  the 
immersion  gloss,  and  does  not  prove  one  way  or  the 
other,  in  favor  of  any  particular  mode  of  baptism. 


54 

iliere  are  two  other  texts,  that  are  used  with  much 
effect  in  this  discussion  by  our  Baptist  friends, 
which  we  must  notice.  The  first  is  Matt,  iii :  5,  6  ; 
the  second  John  iii :  23.  In  first,  it  is  said  that  mul- 
tituaes  went  out  to  John  from  Jerusalem  and  Ju- 
dea,  and  all  the  regions  of  Jordan  and  were  baptiz- 
ed of  him  in  Jordan.  In  the  second  that  he  was 
baptizing  in  Eno7^nQ2iV  to  Salim.  How  these  facts 
have  no  force  in  favor  of  immersion,  unless  it  can 
be  shown  that  "  ^w"  translated  here  in^  always  means 
in.  But  we  have  seen  that  the  learned  translators 
of  our  vei-sion,  say  that  it  sometimes  means  "  withy^ 
as  any  Greek  Lexicon  will  show. 

Now  then  substitute  "  wiW^  for  "  m"  and  see 
how  they  will  read.  "Then  came  to  him  Jerusa- 
lem, and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan,  and  were  baptised  of  him  ^' wiW^  Jordan, 
1.  e.  with  the  water  of  Jordan.  "John  was  baptiz- 
ing "  wiW^  Enon,  i.  e.  with  the  water  of  Enon. 

Now  the  texts  are  stript  of  all  their  immersion  ap- 
pearances, and  we  have  the  naked  fact  of  baptism 
without  any  allusion  to  the  mode. 

C>n  the  other  hand,  it  is  more  than  j^'^^^ohle^  nay 
almost  oeviAiin  that  Cornelius,  Lydia  and  the  Jailor 
were  baptized  by  sprinkling,  because  they  were  bap- 
tized in  private  houses  where  there  were  probably 
no  means  of  immersion,  and  all  the  probabilities  are 
m  favor  of  sprinkling  in  the  case  of  the  three  thousand 
of  Pentecost,  because  it  was  aln\ost  impossible  with- 


55 

out  indecent  haste,  to  immerse  such  a  multitude  in 
one  day. 

Here  then,  we  rest  the  (question  of  the  mode  of 
baptism  with  the  candid  reader,  satisfied  as  we  are 
that  the  truth  will  not  suffer  in  his  hands,  alter  he 
has  impartially  and  patiently  weighed  in  his  mind, 
the  force  and  bearing  of  the  preceding  argunientg 
pfiid  facts, 


56 


CHAPTER  lY. 

THE  SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM ^THE    RIGHT    OF  INFANT  BAP- 
TISM DIVINELY  CONFERRED. 

let.  Thess.  v:21. — "Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good." 

This  direction  of  the  inspired  apostle  has  refer- 
ence to  Christian  doctrine  and  practice. 

With  respect  to  every  thing  pertaining  to  these, 
which  will  stand  the  test  of  lyroof^  i.  e.  severe  inves- 
tigation, he  bids  Christians  "hold  fast."  By  impli- 
cation they  are  to  abandon,  to  kt  go  every  thing 
that  will  not  stand  this  test.  We  are  just  as  much 
bound  to  abandon  what  will  not  stand  this  test,  as 
we  are  to  "  hold  fast''''  that  which  will.  The  exhor- 
tation to  "  prove  all  things,"  implies  a  sure  rule,  by 
which  every  thing  that  professes  to  be  good  may  be 
proved.  That  rule  is  the  inspired  word.  "  Search 
the  Scriptures." 

By  tliis,  we  propose  \.ci  prove  what  is  good,  in  our 
Presbyterian  views  and  practice  relative  to  the  sub- 
jects of  Christian  baptism. 

All  evangelical  christians  agree  in  this,  that  for 
adults,  that  is,  for  those  grown  to  years  of  account- 
ability, the  profession  of  repentance,  and  faith  in  the 
Lord  Jesus,  are  necessary  prerec^uisites  for  baptism. 


57 

Ko  man  ought  to  be  baptized,  unless  he  professes 
to  repent  of  all  his  sins,  and  exercise  a  gospel  faith. 

This  it  is  believed,  is  the  extent  of  the  faith  and 
practice  of  the  Baptist  church.  Presbyterians  go 
farther  than  this,  and  say,  not  only  penitent  believ- 
ers, but  their  infant  offspring  ought  to  be  baptized. 
In  other  words,  we  hold  the  Scripture  validity  of 
infant  baptism.  Our  Baptist  friends  deny  it.  The 
single  point  involved  in  this  discussion  then  is  this, 
whetlier  infants  are  entitled  to  baptism,  according  to 
the  constitution  of  the  church  of  the  Lord  Jesus? 

We  shall  discuss  this  question  in  these  two  as- 
pects ; 

1st.  Test,  try,  "  prove"  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism by  the  Scriptures  of  truth. 

2nd.  Put  the  objections  urged  against  it  to  the 
same  severe  test,  that  the  people  of  God  may  be 
aided  in  their  efforts  to  "  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good,"  and  let  go  that  which  is  evil. 

1st.  Is  infant  baptism  Scriptural?  Ought  in- 
fants of  believing  parents  to  be  baptized  ?  Yes  ! 
and  only  yes  !  AYhy  ?  Because  it  is  in  accordance 
with  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture,  the  spirit  and  ge- 
nius of  Christianity,  and  the  usage  of  the  church, 
ever  since  there  has  been  an  organized  one  upon 
earth. 

How  do  we  know  this  ?  Because  1st.  The  com- 
mission our  Saviour  gave  his  Siposiies  includes  the??}, 
''Go  je^  tQRch  all  nations,  baptizing  them."     Here 


58 

this  position  is  taken,  or  point  made,  that  the  com- 
T/iission  to  baptize  reaches  as  far  as  that  to  "  teach^ 
It  is  not  limited  by  our  Saviour,  and  man  has  no 
rjojht  to  do  so.  As  he  laid  the  obligation  upon  his 
apostles  to  teach  all  nations^  so  to  the  same  extent, 
ro  baptize  all  nations.  Now  if  this  is  fo,  we  ask 
would  this  commission  be  discharged,  this  command 
be  obeyed,  if  they  had  confined  their  teaching  to 
the  adult  population  of  the  nations?  Certainly  not. 
Why?  Because  children  are  a  part  of  the  nations. 
To  teach  the  nations,  they  must  teach  the  children  of 
the  nations  as  Well  as  the  grown  men. 

So  when  they  are  commanded  to  baptize  the  na- 
tions, it  is  no  obedience  to  go  and  baptize  the  adult 
population,  and  stop  there,  because  the  commission 
does  not  stop  there  :  it  runs  farther,  and  takes  in  the 
children.  Obedience  to  any  of  God's  commands  to 
!k'  proper^  must  reach  to  the  extent  of  the  command ; 
any  thing  else  is  an  attempt  to  limit  God's  suprema- 
cy, and  is  of  course  offensive  to  him. 

As  tken,  to  fulfil  Christ's  command,  we  must 
''teach"  the  children,  so  to  obey  his  command  to 
baptize,  we  must  baptize  the  children,  because  in 
hoth.  cases  "all  nations"  includes  the  children. 

2.  The  children  of  believers  have  always  been  in 
the  covenant  with  their  parents. 

Now,  whether  the  covenant  in  Gen.  xvii,  be  the 
covenant  of  grace  or  circumcision,  or  both,  as  we 
think,  it  matters  not,  to  this  argument;  in  either 


59 

case,  It  will  answer  our  purpose.  IIow  do  we  know 
that  Abraham  was  embraced  in  this  covenant  ?  The 
reply  is,  he  is  mentioned  in  the  promise,  "I  will  be 
a  God  to  thee."  Is  any  body  else  interested  in  this 
covenant  ?  This  can  only  be  answered  properly  by 
referring  to  the  promise.  AYhat  then,  docs  the  pro- 
mise say.  "  And  to  thy  seed."  Then  the  ''seed,'^  the 
children^  are  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham.  If 
this  is  so,  the  covenant  is  as  good  to  them  as  to  Abra- 
liam. 

Now,  that  this  was  God's  design,  will  appear  from 
the  fact,  that  the  sign — token  of  God's  outstanding 
covenant,  was  put  upon  the  "seed" — the  infants  of 
the  covenant,  as  well  as  upon  Abraham  himself. 

Circumcision,  therefore,  stands  out  in  all  the  ages 
down  to  Christ  and  the  establishment  of  the  christian 
churcl),  the  perpetual  sign,,  witnessing  to  the  fact, 
that  infants  may  he  in  covenant  with  God. 

That  this  covenant  was  the  outworking  of  the  cov- 
nant  of  grace,  we  think  we  have  satisfactorily  made 
to  appear,  and  if  so,  then  by  the  express  command 
of  God,  infants  were  recognised  in  circumcision,  as 
God's  covenant  children,  capable  of  inheriting  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant,  which  were  union  with 
Christ,  justification,  regeneration,  sanctification,  and 
eternal  life. 

But  to  evade  the  force  of  this  argument,  our  Bap- 
tist friends  say  "there  were  two  transactions  in 
which   Abraham   was   a  party.     The  covenant   of 


60 

grace,  confirmed  unto  him,  when  he  was  seventy -five 
years  old. — Gren.  xii:  1 — 1;  and  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision made  with  him  when  he  was  ninety  years 
old"  (and  nine.) — Gen.  xvii. 

Now,  it  is  asked,  why  call  one  of  these  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  refnso  that  title  to  the  other  ? — 
Let  us  examine  them,  and  see  if  both  are  not  a  mani- 
festation of  one  and  the  same  covenant.  The  first 
contains  an  account  of  Abraham's  call  to  leave  his 
father's  house,  and  go  unto  a  land  of  which  he  knew 
nothing,  coupled  with  the  promise  "  In  thee  shall  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  This  is  all 
that  this  transaction  contained. 

Now,  what  was  this  but  the  breaking  out  of  clear- 
er light  from  the  covenant  of  grace,  fixing  the  old 
promise  of  the  "  seed  of  the  woman,"  in  the  family 
of  Abraham,  and  conferring  the  high  distinction  up- 
on this  servant  of  God,  that  Messiah  should  come  out 
of  his  loins  ?  And  liere,  in  this  promise,  we  find 
the  secret  of  that  marvelous  strength  of  heart  and 
nerve  displayed  by  the  man  of  God  on  Mt.  Moriah, 
which  entitled  him,  to  be  called  "  the  father  of  the 
faithful." 

All  then  that  this  transaction  did,  was  to  "  preach 
the  gospel"  to  Abraham  by  locating  the  Messianic 
prophecies  in  his  family.  This  was  the  view  the 
apostle  Paul  had  of  it,  for  he  says  "  and  the  Scrip- 
tures foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  heathen 
through  faith,  preached  before  the  gosjM  unto  Ahra- 


ei 

ham,  saying  in  thee  shall  all  nations  be  ^blessed." 
Oal.  iii  :  8.  This,  then,  according  to  the  apostle, 
was  the  "  preaching  of  the  gospel  unto  Abraham," 
and  as  much  and  no  more  the  covenant  of  grace, 
than  the  preacliing  of  the  gospel  now  is. 

That  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii,  is  a  more  enlarged 
transaction,  in  v/hich  the  located  promise  of  Messi- 
ah on  the  house  of  Abraham  begins  to  work  in  the 
developoient  of  the  fact  that  "  God  would  he  his  God^ 
and  the  God  of  his  seedP  And  now,  Abraham 
having  been  chosen,  called,  and  separated  from  the 
rest  of  the  Princes  of  his  age,  and  his  family  select- 
ed as  that  from  which  Messiah  should  come,  God 
proceeds  to  manifest  farther  his  covenant  grace, 
by  organizing  in  his  family  his  visible  church  and 
fixing  the  visible  sign  of  initiation^  in  the  circum- 
cision of  the  flesh. 

Here  then  was  when  God  first  organized  his 
church,  and  circumcision  was  the  door  of  entrance 
thereto.  Why  then  call  one  of  these  transactions, 
the  covenant  of  grace,  and  not  the  other  ?  The  last 
is  certainly  a  more  full  manifestation  of  grace  than 
the  first. 

But  the  very  admission  that  the  first  is  a  develop- 
ment of  the  covenant  ofgrace,/?6C^*5<xW^2/ draws  along 
with  it  the  fact  that  the  other  is  also,  and  then  the 
overii) helming  consequence  comes  down  irresistibly^ 
erushingly  on  the  system  of  our  Baptist  friends  that 

infants  were  not  only  in  covenant  with  God,  but  re- 

6 


62 

ceived  the  sign  of  circumcision,  as  a  token  of  their 
acknowledged  church  membership. 

But  lest  this  sliould  be  obscure  to  some  of  the  peo- 
])\e  of  (iod,  we  take  another  position,  and  assert 

3rd.  That  the  children  of  believing  parents  should 
be  baptized,  because  thej  were  members  of  the 
church  of  God  before  Christ  came,  and  he  neither 
hi/  y)ovd  or  act  has  ever  excluded  them, 

Now  that  infants  were  members  of  the  Jewish 
Ohnrch,  and  admitted  by  circumcision  is  not  denied 
by  any^  that  we  are  aware  uf.  Mr.  Keach,  a  Bap- 
tist minister  of  no  mean  repute,  says  ("Gold  refined" 
page  113,)  "  That  children ^w^ere  admitted  members 
of  the  Jewish  church  is  granted."  So  Mr.  Booth, 
vol.2,  page  224.  So  Mr.  Monroe  page  33,  says: 
"N'ot  only  children,  but  slaves,  were  members  of 
the  Jewish  church  by  the  rite  of  circumcision." 
Now  w^e  insist  upon  it,  that  these  admissions  give 
lip  the  point  in  debate.  We  submit  it  to  the  can- 
did and  impartial  reader  if  the}^  do  not  ? 

At  any  rate,  if  we  can  show  (as  we  now  propose 
to  do)  that  the  Jewish  church  was  the  church  of 
God,  and  the  Christian  church  only  a  continuation 
of  that,  then  it  will  follow  that  the  right  of  infants 
to  membership  therein  continues,  nuless  it  can  be 
shown  that  they  have  been  divested  of  it  by  express 
^unnmand  of  God. 

Was  then  the  Jewish  church  the  church  of  God  ? 
Yes !     Certainly  it   was.     Otherwise   God   had   no 


63 

cliurcli  in  the  world  before  and  through  all  the  ex- 
istence of  the"  Jewish  State  as  a  nationality.  Biit 
that  must  have  been  the  church  of  Grod,  of  which 
the  apostle  Panl  witnesseth  when  he  says,  "  Who 
are  Israelites,  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adoption,  and 
the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the 
Law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises. 
Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning 
the  flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  ail  God  blessed 
forever,  am^n  ?"     Rom.  ix:4. 

What  says  our  Saviour  to  those  membi^js  of  the 
chni'ch  who  had  declined  from  the  truth,  and  refus- 
ed to  acknowledge  him  as  Messiah?  Does  iie  deny 
their  church  membership  ?  ^o,  not  at  all.  His  Ian- 
guage  is  "Yerilyl  say  unto  you,  the  Mngdoia  of 
God  shall  be  taken  from  you  and  given  to  a  nation 
bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."     Matt,  xxi  :  43. 

The  plain  meaniiig  here  is  the  church  of  God 
which  ye  have  had — his  visible  kingdom,  shall  be 
taken  from  you  and  given  to  the  Gentiles. 

^*  There  are  three  things  denoted  by  this  taking 
the  kingdom  from  the  Jews  and  giving  it  to  the 
Gentiles,  1st.  a  ceasing  of  a  regular  oro^anized  cliurch 
of  God,  among  the  Jews.  2nd.  A  setting  up  of 
this  church  of  God  taken  from  the  Jews  among  the 
Gentiles,  and  3rd.  a  sameness  of  State  among  the 
Gentiles,  as  among  the  Jews.  The^a/m?.^  away^w(S. 
giving  from  one  to  another  imports  no  change  in  the 
thing  taken  and  given,  but  simply  a  passing  ov^er 
from  the  hands  of  one  to  those  of  another." 


64 

"  [N'ow  if  we  wish  to  know  what  the  church  is  to 
he  under  the  Gentiles,  we  need  only  to  enquire  what 
it  was  undf^r  the  Jews,  for  in  both  cases  the  church 
was  essentially  the  same. 

Then  as  it  has  been  proved  and  admitted  by 
''Keach/'  "Booth,"  and  "Monroe,"  (as  quoted 
above)  that  the  membership  in  tlie  Jewish  church 
consisted  of  adults  and  infants,  membership  in  the 
Gentile  church  must  consist  of  adults  and  infants, 
for  the  reason  that  the  "  same  that  was  taken  away 
was  given,"  unless  an  express  alteration  in  this  re- 
s}>ect  can  be  shown.  And  this  brings  us  another 
step  in  our  argument,  which  is  to  prove, 

'4th,  That  the  coming  of  Jesus  Christ  did  not  nar- 
rov\^  or  detract  any  thing  from  tlie  mercy  of  God. 
This  it  must  have  done,  if  any  who  obtained  it  un- 
der the  old  dispensation,  do  not  obtain  it  under  the 
new.  But  infants  obtained  mercy  to  be  in  covenant 
with  God  under  the  old,  and  must  attain  to  the  same 
under  tlie  new  dispensation,  or  Christ  has  by  his 
coming  limited,  narrowed  down,  and  restrained  the 
a])oundrng  of  that  mercy.  This  cannot  be,  for  in 
all  the  ages  pasty  every  change  in  tlie  order  of  God^s 
dealings  with  man,  has  been  in  tlie  way  of  enlarge- 
ment and  progress.  One  opening  dispensation  has 
never  gone  behi'^.d  that  which  has  preceded  it  in 
the  manifestation  of  God's  love  and  mei-cy.  Pro- 
gress is  the  great  law  of  life  and  wisdom ;  and  this 
God  has  sanctified  in   the  eyes  of  all  intelligences, 


56 

bj  making  it  the  order  tor  developing  the  fulness 
and  power  of  the  great  principles  of  salvation. 

Xow  that  our  Saviour  did  not  disregard  this  law 
in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  will  appear  from  what  is 
recorded  in  Mark  x :  13,  14,  "  And  they  brought 
young  children  to  him  that  he  should  touch  them  ; 
and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought  them., 
and  when  Jesus  saw  it  he  was  much  displeased,  and 
said  unto  them,  suffer  the  little  children  to  come  un- 
to me,  and  forhid  the jn  not,  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  God."  This  text  is  commended  to  the  care- 
ful consideration  of  the  reader,  for  it  contains,  as  we 
conceive,  proof  positive  and  direct  to  the  poii-it  we 
are  handling.  Not  that  our  Saviour  on  this  occa- 
sion, baptized  these  '^little  children;''  but  that  Ae 
distinctly  recognized  their  membership  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  and  if  Christ  here  asserts  for  them 
membership  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  surely  they  are 
entitled  to  that  rite  of  the  church  by  which  they  are 
recognized  as  members  thereof. 

On  this  passage  Calvin  has  this,  ''Inst."  B.  4,  ch. 
16,  sec.  7:  ''For  it  is  not  to  be  passed  over,  as  a 
thing  of  little  importance,  that  Christ  commanded 
infants  to  be  brought  to  liim,  and  added  as  a  reason 
for  this  command  'for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God.'  If  it.  be  reasonable  for  infants  to  be  broug-ht 
to  Christ,  v/hy  is  it  not  allowed  to  admit  them  to 
baptism-'the  sign  of  our  communion  and  fellow- 
ship with  Christ.  If  of  them  is  the  kingdom  of  God, 
why  should  they  be  denied  the  sign  which  opens  as 


it  were,  an  entrance  into  the  church  ?"  That  infants 
of  parents  in  covenant  with  God  belong  to  God,  and 
are  in  covenant  with  him,  will  appear  from  the  pro- 
mise, "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed,"  as 
well  as  from  the  fact  that  when  God  commanded  his 
church  to  be  gathered  together,  he  did  not  permit 
their  "  little  ones,"  or  even  those  that  "  sucked  the 
breast"  to  be  absent.  Deut.  xxix  :  10,  11  ;  Joel  ii  : 
10,  and  of  these  he  sajs  :  they  "  were  born  unto  me." 
Eze.  xvi :  20.  Witsius  says  :  "  Infants  belong  to  the 
church ;  all  who  belong  to  the  church  have  a  right 
to  baptism,  and  as  a  consequence  infants  ought  to 
be  baptized."     "  Econ.  of  Gov."  vol.  %  page  437. 

5th.  The  apostle  Paul  in  1st  Cor.  vii :  14  repre- 
sents the  children  of  one  or  hoth  helieving  parent:^ 
to  he  ''''holyy  His  language  is,  "  For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  (believing)  wife  ;  and 
the  unbelieving  wife  by  the  husband :  else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy.  " 
This  stands  as  a  reason  why  those  in  the  marriage 
relation,  who  had  joined  the  church  and  had  unbe- 
lieving companions,  should  not  separate  from  them. 
]S^ow  he  says,  their  children  are  "  holyP  Wheiher 
we  understand  this  literally  or  federally^  it  amounts 
to  the  same  thing  in  this  argument.  For  if  the 
children  of  believing  parents  are  really  holy,  they 
have  clearly  a  right  to  baptism,  which  puts  them  in 
visible  communion  with  the  holy  of  earth.  If  they 
2,v^  federally  holy,  (as  "  Foedus,"  means  a  covenant,) 
federally  means  to  occupy  covenant  relatione,  and  if 


67 

so,  then  still  tlioy  have  a  right  to  baptism,  which  is 
the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  in  winch  they  are 
interested. 

6th.  We  have  accounts  in  the  Scriptures  of  whole 
families  being  baptized : 

"  Lydia  and  her  household,"  Acts  xvi :  15.  The 
Jailor  at  Philippi,  "He  and  all  his  straightwa}'.*' 
x\cts  xvi :  33,  and  "the  household  of  Stephanas.'* 
1st.  Cor.  i :  16.  Kow  upon  every  principle  of  rea- 
son and  common  sense,  it  ought  to  be  taken  for 
granted  that  in  some,  or  all  of  these  families,  there 
were  infants,  unless  it  is  proved  to  the  contrary, 
which  never  has  been  done.  If  there  were  infants 
in  any  of  these  families,  the}^  certainly  were  baptized. 

7th.  Infants  of  believing  parents  were  baptized 
in  all  the  early  ages  of  the  Christian  church. 

On  this  point  we  will  content  ourselves  with  citing 
the  opinions  of  learned,  pious  and  godly  men,  vvho 
were  not  only  qualified  to  testify  on  this  matter,  but 
whose  vrorld-wide  reputation  gives  weight  to  any 
witness  they  may  bear.  Calvin  says,  "  Infants  there- 
fore  cannot  be  deprived  ot  baptism,  without  a  man- 
itVst  evasion  of  the  divine  will.  What  they  (i.  e. 
the  opposers  of  infant  baptism)  what  they  circulate 
among  the  uninformed  multitude,  that  after  the  re- 
Burrection  of  Christ,  a  long  series  of  years  passed, 
in  wliich  infant  baptism  was  unknown  is  contrary 
to  truths  for  there  is  no  ancient  writer  who  does  nut 
refer  its  origin,  as  a  matter  of  certainty  to  the  age 
of  the  apostles."     "Inst."  B.  4..  ch.  16^  sec,  8. 


68 

Dr.  Jno.  Brown  says,  "Even  Pelagius  whose  learn- 
ing was  considerable,  and  who  had  traveled  through 
a  great  part  of  the  Christian  world,  whose  darling 
opinions  powerfully  tempted  him  to  deny  infant  bap- 
tism, declared  that  he  had  never  in  all  his  travels 
heard  of  any  who  denied  infants'  right  to  baptism." 
<■'  Divinity"  page  538. 

The  great  Angustin;  in  his  book  against  Pelagius, 
as  quoted  by  Watson,  says  :  "  It  hath  been  the  cus- 
tom of  the  church  in  all  ages  to  baptize  infants." 
"Divinity,"  page  364. 

The  learned  Erasmus  says:  "Infant  baptism  has 
been  used  by  the  church  of  God  for  Q^^ov\i  fourteen 
hu7idred  yearsP     "Watson's  Divinity,"  p.  364.'* 

Those,  then,  are  some  of  the  reasons  upon  which 
the  practice  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  baptizing 
her  infants  rests.  It  will  be  seen  by  the  careful  and 
candid  reader,  that  she  is  well  sustained  by  Scrip- 
ture, as  well  as  by  the  brightest  names  that  adorn 
the  pages  of  the  church's  history. 
'  Having  then  tested  or  "  proved"  as  the  apostle  di- 
rects, infant  baptism  to  be  true  mid  good,,  let  us  "hold 
it  fast." 


*  Pictet  says  :  "  It  is  clearly  proved  from  the  testimony  of  Irenae- 
us,  Origen,  Cypnau,  Ambrose,  and  Cyril,  and  many  other  writers 
that  infants  were  baptized :  and  in  the  Council  held  at  Carthage  A. 
D.  418,  an  anathema  is  pronounced  on  him  who  denies  that  nevy. 
born  infants  ought  to  be  baptized."     "Theology,"  p.  414. 


69 


OBJECTIONS. 


We  now  proceed  to  notice  2nd.  The  chief  objec- 
tions urged  against  infant  baptism,  and  we  wish  to 
put  these  to  the  same  severe  test — to  "  prove"  them 
as  the  apostle  tells  us,  so  that  we  may  "hold  fast" 
to  them  or  let  them  go,  as  thej  shall  be  sustained  or 
not  bj  sound  reason  and  the  word  of  God. 

1st.  It  is  said  thei-e  is  no  '^  exjjress  coimnand''^  for 
baptizing  infants. 

This  is  not  denied.  But  we  cannot  eee  that  thcro 
is  any  need  for  an  express  command  for  a  rite  like 
this,  which  basing  itself  on  the  covenant  of  God, 
signs  and  seals  the  rights  with  v.diicli  that  covenant 
invests  them.  Besides  there  is  an  express  command 
for  circumcising  infants,  and  as  we  have  abundantly 
shown,  that  baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  this,  and 
holds  tlie  same  relation  to  the  covenant,  the  express 
command  to  circumcise,  amounts  to  an  express  com- 
mand to  baptize.  There  was  no  neediov  an  express 
command  for  admitting  infants  to  covenant  privi- 
leges which  they  had  enjoyed  from  time  immemo- 
rial. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  have  a  riglit  to  call  for  an 
express  provision  on  the  part  of  God,  s'lowing  thut 
under  the  Gospel,  he  has  divested  our  children  of 
covenant  rights,  which  all  the  children  of  believers 
have  enjoyed  from  Abraham  down  to  the  coming  of 
Christ. 

Now  is  it  not  a   principle   recognized   and  acted 


Yd 

on  by  ail  bodies  in  which  legislative  power  resides, 
that  in  amending  laws,  altering  charters,  and  chang- 
ing constitntions,  all  of  the  old  remains  in  full  force 
except  (hat  wliich  ^6^  expressly  changed  by  public 
enactment,  or  by  unavoidable  implication? 

So  if  it  be  contended  that  God  has  changed  the 
laws  of  liis  house,  we  ask  how  ?  When?  Where? 
AVe  Hsk  to  be  pointed  to  the  amending  act,  and  the 
Clause  specified  which  changes  the  old  law.  If  this 
c.iiDiot  be  done,  we  mast  hold  to  the  old  covenant 
onslitulion,  which  has  a'uaran teed  and  perpetuated 
our  chuich  rights  and  (hose  of  our  children. 

Eat  before  our  Ba])tist  brethren  can  fairly  avail 
themselves  of  this  objection,  they  must  show  their 
shicerity  by  their  consistency  in  observing  the  rule 
they  would  lay  on  us.  Now  do  they  do  this?  Let 
us  see.  They  observe  the  Christicm.-  Sabbath  ;  have 
they  any  express  command  for  this?  It  they  have, 
let  them  show  it.  They  preach  the  gospel  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  this  is  the  great  htcsiness  to  which  they 
devote  it;  any  express  QommBswd  for  this?  If  there 
is,  let  them  show  it.  They  admit  females  to  the 
Lord's  table;  is  there  any  ^a?/>r^.s.9  command  for  this? 
If  thei"e  is,  let  them  bhow  it.  2\ow  let  them  be  con- 
sistent, and  abandon  the  observance  of  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbafh,  give  np  making  that  a  day  of  pulpit 
labor,  andcease  admitting  females  to  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble, or  give  up  their  persistent  stickling  about  an 
express  command  for  infant  baptism. 


S-nd.  It  is  said  there  is  "  no  express  instance  of  in- 
fant baptism,"  in  all  the  New  Testament. 

"If  the  reader  will  find  recorded  the  l)a|)tism  of 
one  infant,  we  will  consider  the  point  settled  for- 
ever." 

Thus  at  one  time,  thej  want  an  exjjress  cmrimtnid, 
and  at  another  an  express  instance. 

But  this  express  mode  of  reasoning  will  not  do. 
If  strictly  applied,  it  will  destroy  the  very  church 
itself.  If  we  are  to  do  nothing  but  what  we  have 
an  express  command  for,  a  large  part  of  our  duty 
will  be  left  undone  ;  and  if  we  are  to  believe  nothing 
but  what  we  have  an  express  example  of,  a  great 
part  of  our  creed  will  be  undermined. 

To  illustrate  this  w^e  give  the  following  example. 
It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  the  rite  of  circumcis- 
ion on  the  eighth  day  was  instituted  in  the  family 
of  Abraham,  and  that  it  was  practiced  to  the  time 
of  John  the  Baptist.  Now  if  the  fact  that  there  is 
no  express  example  of  infant  baptism  is  a  sufficient 
reason  for  its  rejection,  then  it  will  reject  female 
communion,  imd  oMige  those  who  use  it  thus  to  de- 
ny that  there  was  any  such  rite  as  infant  circurncis- 
ion  on  the  eighth  day  among  the  Jews  ;  for  we  are 
very  much  mistaken  if  there  is  an  express  instanee 
of  this  in  all  the  Bible  history  from  Abraham  to 
John  the  Baptist.  It  will  also  drive  them  into  the 
error  of  asserting  that  many  of  the  churches  of 
the  apostles   did  not  practice  the  rite  of  baptism  ; 


72 

tliat  tliej  iieitlier  baptized  adults  nor  infants;  for 
there  is  no  express  exa?nple  of  any  baptism  at  all, 
either  in  the  church  of  Antioch,  or  Iconiuin,  or 
lionie.  or  Theesalonica,  or  Colosse.  And  because  there 
is  no  express  example,  are  we  prepared  to  assert  that 
there  was  no  baptism  in  any  of  these  churches  ?  Sure- 
ly a  principle  that  leads  to  snch  extremes  as  these, 
ought  to  be  abandoned — a  principle  that  thus  flies 
in  the  face  of  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  vvhich 
asserts  that  there  is  no  nse  in  giving  express  exam- 
ples of  what  is  altogether  common,  ought  to  be  giv- 
en up. 

3rd.  It  is  urged  that  infants  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized, because  they  cannotexercise  faith  and  repent- 
ance. "  Now  we  solemnly  pledge  ourselves  that  if 
our  brethren  will  only  produce  one  single  text  from 
the  New  Testament,  where  it  is  said  that  infants  can 
and  do  exercise  faith  and  love,  then  we  will  take 
the  little  ones  and  baptize  them."  "  Faith  and  Bap- 
tism," page  93. 

This  whole  objection  proceeds  upon  the  false  hy- 
pothesis, that  it  is  faith  and  repentance  which  enti- 
tle one  to  baptism,  whereas  it  is  the  covenant  rela-^ 
tion  man  sustains  to  God  which  gives  him  this  right. 

Faith  and  repentance  are  prerequisites  to  baptism 
only  as  they  show  in  their  out  workings,  that  a  man 
sustains  this  covenant  relation.  Any  farther  than 
ihis^  they  have  no  bearing  upon  the  question.  And 
even  here,  they  can  be  made  a  test  no  farther  than 


73 

they  will  apply  ;  but  they  do  not  apply  to  infants, 
therefore  they  can  never  be  made  a  test  of  their 
qualifications. 

The  Baptist  argument  here  would  be  good  against 
infants,  if  there  was  no  covenant  running  before  the 
rite  of  baptism,  but  as  there  is,  upon  which  the  rito 
itself  is  based,  and  from  which  it  derives  all  its  mean- 
ing, it  is  necessarily  unsound. 

The  reason  why  faith  and  repentance  are  prere- 
quisites, is  because  they  are  a  part  of  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant,  and  being  possessed  by  a  man,  they 
show  that  he  is  in  the  covenant  and  therefore  enti- 
tled to  its  sign. 

Now  faith  and  repentance  can  no  more  be  made  a 
test  of  infants'  right  to  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  than 
the  possession  by  a  grown  man  of  a  portion  of  a  father's 
estate  determines  the  right  of  minor  heirs.  His  right 
to  a  portion  of  the  estate  of  a  dead  father,  deter- 
mines on  the  provisions  of  his  will,  and  the  right  of 
minor  heirs  rests  upon  the  provisions  of  that  same 
will.  Suppose  this  elder  brother  to  adopt  the  argu- 
ment of  our  Baptist  brethren,  and  see  to  what  i! 
would  lead.  He  says  to  himself,  "  the  law  requiree 
two  things  as  prerequisites  before  any  one  shall 
come  into  personal  possession  of  landed  property^ 
and  these  are  a  sound  mind  and  mature  years.  Mj 
younger  brothers  and  sisters  have  no  right  to  any 
of  the  property  because  they  have  not  the  prerequi- 
fites  the  law  requires.      I  will  therefore  exclude 


74 

tbera,  and  appropriate  to  myself  all  the  estate." 
AVhat  would  the  law  eay  to  snch  a  man  if  he  pro- 
ceeded to  act  upon  this  reasoning?  \Yhy  just  this, 
*'If  you  want  to  know  the  right  of  minor  heirs,  you 
must  not  contrast  their  present  circumstances  with 
yours,  but  look  to  tlie  will  of  your  father;  are  they 
mentioned  in  the  will?  If  so,  then  they  inherit 
with  you,  and  though  like  you,  they  may  not  liavo 
come  into  possession,  yet  in  due  time  they  will." 

We  have  little  patience  with  that  infatuation 
which  leads  some  to  do  all  they  can  to  disinherit  the 
minor  heirs  of  our  father's  covenanted  estate.  The 
tender  babes — the  ^^hrejj ha'''— ''infants  on  the  breasts" 
whom  Jesus  our  dear  elder  Brother  loved  so  well 
before  he  left  lis,  strangers  in  this  strange  world,  of 
these  he  said,  my  Father  loves  them,  ^'  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven," — save  them,  take  care  of  them, 
guard  their  rights,  train  them  up  for  God. 

The  objection  reaches  too  far ;  for  it  not  only  dis- 
inherits  the  minor  heirs  of  the  covenant,  but  con- 
signs them  to  everlasting  bankruptcy  and  ruin.  It 
leaves  thevi  without  the  inheritance  of  life. 

The  argument,  if  it  means  anything,  runs  thus, 
faith  and  repentance  are  necessary  to  baptism,  but 
infants  cannot  exercise  faith  and  repentance,  there- 
fore infants  should  not  be  baptized.  Let  us  try  the 
argument  in  another  shape,  and  see  if  it  does  not 
lead  to  the  results  above  asserted  :  faith  and  repent- 
ance are  necessary  to  salvation,  but  infants  cannot 


n 

exercise  faith  and  repentance,  therefore  infants  can* 
not  be  saved. 

Xow  can  any  body  tell  why  this  argumeni:  should 
not  be  as  good  in  one  of  tliese  cases  as  in  the  other? 
He  who  adopts  it,  ought  in  consistency  to  follow  it, 
where  it  goes;  and  then  what  becomes  of-the  salva- 
tion of  infants? 

If  our  Baptist  friends  will  press  it  against  the  bap- 
tism of  infants,  let  them  follow  it.  It  will  not  do  for 
them  to  say  here  that  they  do  not  adopt  this  conclu* 
BJon,  but  believe  that  all  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are 
Baved  through  the  atonement  of  Christ ;  /'or  t/ic  two 
cannot  stand  together.  To  preserve  consistency,  one 
or  the  other  must  be  given  up.  Either  the  argu- 
ment  or  the  o2nnion.  Which  will  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren prefer?  The  author  of  "Faith  and  Baptism '' 
Beems  inclined  to  hold  on  to  the  argument,  and  let 
the  dear  children  go.  On  page  42.  afrer  (pioting  the 
text,  *'I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches,"  he  asks 
"if  Christ  is  the  true  and  living  Yine,  and  believers 
upon  him  are  the  living  branches,  can  there  be  any 
conceivable  advantage  in  grafting  a  lifeless,  withered 
branch  into  this  sacred  and  holy  vine;  and  more  es- 
pecially, as  such  grafting  can  only  be  a  mere  profes- 
sion, and  not  a  reality?" 

Here  infants  and  believers  are  contrasted.  Be- 
lievers are  ''Hiving  hranches^^'  infants  are  lifeless^ 
withered  hrf\xn^\iQ^^  and  to  graft  such  by  baptism  in- 
to the  living  vine,  would  be  attended  with  no  eon- 


T6 

ceivahle  advantage.  This  passage  contains  two  verj 
grave  inaccuracies.  In  theology  and  infact^  it  is  un- 
sound. Men  are  never  grafted  into  the  ''  living  vine" 
by  baptism.  If  they  are  not  grafted  in  before  that^ 
you  cannot  pat  them  in  hy  that.  Baptism  is  not  a 
converting  ordinance.  It  seals  this  grace,  but  never 
confers  it. 

So  much  for  the  theology.  Now  for  the  fact.  In- 
fants are  ^^ dead,,  withered^''  branches.  They  are  not 
^'hranchAS^''  at  all.  T\\qj  2iVQ  livhig  huds  w^on  the 
living  branches,  already  grafted  into  the  living  vme, 
and  hold  the  same  relation  to  the  vine,  Christ  Jesus, 
that  their  living  parent  branches  do. 

Hence,  God  says,  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to 
thy  seed."  Hence,  Peter,  "the  promise  is  to  you 
and  to  your  children."  But,  if  we  grant  that  they 
are  *' lifeless  branches,"  then  there  are  two  difficul- 
ties in  the  way  of  our  Baptist  bretliren  in  making 
out  their  salvation,  which  to  us,  seem  absolutely  in- 
surmountable. The  first  is  this,  if  they  are  "  lifeless 
branches,"  then  the  apostledirectly  asserts  that  such 
■*'are  fit  only  to  be  burned,"  and  dying  in  infancy, 
they  must  be  lost.  This  saying  of  the  apostle  holds 
them  in  fetters  as  remorseless  as  fate.  The  second 
iis  this,  the  apostle  teaches  in  Homans,  that  there  is 
mo  ''grafting  into  the  living  vine,  Jesus  Christ,  but 
hj  jfaith,^^  and  they  say  infants  cannot  exercise 
tfaith.  Then,  there  is  no  grafting  in  for  them,  and 
<dyin^  in  infancy,  thej  must  perish.     Thus  it  appears 


T7 

that  that  system  of  religious  teaching,  which  cuts  off 
our  infants  from  baptism,  sustains.it6elf  upon  princi* 
pies  which,  if  rigidly  adhered  to,  would  cut  them- off 
from  life. 

The  reader  is  ppecially  desired  to  notice  that  we 
do  not  say  that  any  of  our  Baptist  brethren  directly 
teach  that  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  lost.  "What 
we  assert  is  this,  that  that  system,  which  ignores  the 
covenant  which  gives  to  baptism  its  significance — 
which  destroys  the  standing  of  infants  in  that  cove- 
nant, makes  no  provision  for  its  children  in  the  way 
of  church  rites  until  they  arrive  at  adult  years,  vir- 
tually disfranchises  thern^  and  leaves  them  to  God's 
"  uncovenanted  mercy ^^'^  (which  by  the  way,  is  no 
mercy  at  all)  to  wander  and  stumble  upon  the  dark 
mountains  of  sin. 

On  the  other  hand,  how  beautiful  and  harmonious 
is  that  system  of  revealed  truth  which,  basing  itself 
upon  God's  everlasting  covenant  of  grace,  fetches 
the  meaning  of  all  church  rites,  from  that  covenant 
— judges  of  the  fitness  of  church  members  by  the  re- 
lations they  sustain  to  the  covenant — takes  the  over- 
sight of  the  rising  generations— binds  all  its  adult 
members  to  recognise  their  infants  as  the  children  of 
tlie  church,  and  to  unite  together  in  prayers,  teach- 
ing, and  example,  to  train  them  for  God  and  hea- 
ven. 

Reader,  we  love  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  we 
challenge  for  her,  a  part  of  your  regard.     We  love 


tf 

her,  beeauge  she  teaches  us  that  ourchildrea  are  the 
Lord's — that  we  are  not  alone  in  our  affection  for 
them,  but  that  the  God  of  the  covenant  regards  them 
with  a  higher,  purer,  holier  interest  than  we  do. — ' 
Because,  no  sooner  are  children  born  unto  us,  than 
she  makes  it  our  duty  to  bring  them  to  her,  that  the 
baptismal  water  may  be  put  upon  them,  and  thu3 
their  right  to  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  be  seal- 
ed unto  them,  and  over  their  joung  heads  rise  the 
united  prajei's  of  God's  people,  in  their  behalf — • 
We  love  the  Presbyterian  church  because,  while  on 
the  one  hand  she  exacts  of  us  public  vows  of  faithful- 
ness to  our  children's  spiritual  interests,  she  at  the 
same  time  imposes  an  obligation  upon  every  mem- 
ber to  pray  for  them,  and'co-operate  with  us,  in  seek- 
ing their  salvation. 

We  love  the  Presbyterian  church,  not  simply  be- 
cause she  has  borne  her  banner  gallantly  upon  the 
high  places  of  the  earth,  and  sustained  it  floating  in 
the  winds,  amid  the  monuments  of  heathenism,  but 
because,  inscribed  upon  its  ample  folds,  wherever  it 
floats,  are  the  tokens  of  her  love,  for  her  own  dear 
children.  We  love  the  Presbyterian  church  be- 
cause, whether  in  christian  or  heathen  lands,  like  a 
wise  and  loving  mother,  she  sends  forth  every  child 
of  hers  to  the  great  battle  of  life,  inscribed  with^tho 
sign  of  the  covenant,  and  pledged  to  the  cause  of 
humanity,  religion,  and  God. 

And  now,  dear  reader,  if  you  have  had  patienc© 


75 

to  follow  lis  through  the  windings  of  our  argument, 
may  your  reward  be,  more  enlarged  views  of  the 
covenant.  If  you  are  a  child  of  God,  hold  fast  to 
the  rights  he  has  conferred,  that  you  may  be  prepar- 
ed to  bear  your  part,  in  the  coming  coronation  of  the 
Great  Mediator  of  tlie  Covenant  of  Life. 


